Talk:Filli Vanilli/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I AM NOT MISSING A CHANCE TO REVIEW MLP NOMINATIONS THAT ARE NOT MINE!! But really, I do want to review this. Expect comments by 8 February. Will try not to screw this up. Pamzeis (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis Hahahahaha! You can take your time, that will allow me to work on some other stuff. xD ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 07:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Prose

• seventy ninth — should be hyphenated

• Added.

• Thiessen and co-directed by — since this article is (or should be...) written in American English, add a comma before and

• Mr. Styyx writes in heaven knows what English. :) Added.

• BigMac lip-syncs — his name is two words, right?

• Eeyuup. Fixed.

• by 584.000 people — I know MOS:DIGITS is not part of the GA criteria but can the full stop be replaced with comma because it is annoying the heck out of me...

• Fixed.

• Now with — comma after now?

• Added.

• Pony Tones, and agrees — I do not think the comma is needed

• Removed

• Entertainment Weekly should be in italics

• Stupid mistake, fixed.

• Factory which was made — comma after factory

• Added.

• by Amazon released — comma after Amazon

• Added.

Sources

• What makes TV Media Insights a reliable source?

• According to the source itself they got the numbers from Nielsen Media Research. According to this, the chief-editor Marc Berman previously worked at places like NBC and Paramont. That's all I have.

• My biggest concern with this article is the heavy reliance on primary sources (about half of the article's refs). In particular, the production is source entirely to primary source, except one. Per WP:PRIMARY: be cautious about basing large passages on them. I understand that there may be no other sources for some claims, but this issue would probably be worthy of a cleanup banner...

• I'll figure this out when I get back home.

• So... I turned the three tweets into a single source for starters. Although a whole section, it isn't as large as it looks (aided by the picture), and to be honest I don't really know what else to do.

Other

• Amazon didn't release Maud Pie. Shout! Factory did...

• Removed Amazon. I don't feel the need to mention Shout! again.

• Alvarez's criticism of Pinkie Pie could be mentioned for neutrality

• Added ", but noted that Pinkie Pie was annoying in the episode".

Added all my notes. Article  On hold. Pamzeis (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis Fixed most if not all. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look

• Is Magic as well — comma after magic?

• Added.

• but noted that Pinkie Pie was annoying in the episode. — "noted" suggests a fact...

• Swapped with "claimed". ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Still a few things that need to be cleared up. Pamzeis (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still reviewing the sources... I'm not done yet. Pamzeis (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources have left me baffled.  Second opinion requested for the use of primary sources here. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable passing the article with the current level of primary sources used. Definitely needs additional secondary sources. ––FormalDude talk 09:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Status query

Pamzeis, Styyx, where does this review stand? A second opinion was given that the article "definitely needs additional secondary sources", yet there have been no edits in the month since here or to the article. Can you get this nomination moving again? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Oh crap, I had a GAN. I think this is a fail at this point since there aren't any secondary sources about production. ~Styyx^Talk? 00:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't notice the second opinion had been provided because it was still showing up as needing a second opinion on the nominations page. Given the second opinion and the fact that the nominator agrees, I'm gonna have to  fail this. Thank you for all your work. Pamzeis (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)