Talk:TransGeneration/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look this one over and review it later. Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 13, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lede is a bit short, and article is a bit large. Article size is fine, just saying per WP:LEAD, lede should be expanded to a bit more, to function as a good summary of the entire article's contents, not just an introduction. You gotta work on improving the flow and the format with regards to lots of short paragraphs. These should be expanded, or just merged together to have larger paragraphs along relevant themes within each section.

Done —Ringbang (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable?: Article is well cited, info that is not cited is plot info per WP:PLOTSUMMARY and the wording is given in a matter of fact manner.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers major aspects including Background, Production, Overview, The students, Episodes, TransGeneration Reunion, Marketing, Broadcasts, releases, and screenings, Reception, Before the television premiere, After the television premiere, Awards and nominations, and Legacy. Would really like to see more Production info, that section could be expanded more.

4. Neutral point of view?: Wording is given in a matter of fact manner. Article is presented in a neutral tone. Appears to be NPOV presentation.

5. Stable? Nice good talk page interactions. No major edit warring in edit history.

6. Images?: File:TransGeneration logo (DVD version).png is good. File:Transgenerationpromophoto.jpg is oddly formatted, license should be in its own section at bottom, rationale should be in Summary section, numbered list can go inside the rationale box under "purpose of use.

Fixed —Ringbang (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Sagecandor (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your feedback, Sagecandor. My progress updates appear under the respective items above. —Ringbang (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool keep me posted. Sagecandor (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sagecandor, thanks for your patience. After some additions and revisions to the main text, I think the last item on my checklist is expanding the lede. —Ringbang (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see you've still got some work to do there. Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ready for round two. See what you think. —Ringbang (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of short paragraphs[edit]

Lots of short paragraphs. Looks bad. Try to expand or merge some together. WP:LEAD says 4 paragraphs max, you have 5 currently. Sagecandor (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Copyedited to four paragraphs. —Ringbang (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Still lots of short paragraphs. Many of them are only one sentence long. Sagecandor (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Ah, I understood your message to refer to the lede specifically.

Done —Ringbang (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: If you don't have time to finish the review, that's okay; but if that's the case, could you please let me know so that I can relist the article? —Ringbang (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ringbang:Read it over again, will finish it up soon. Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info in Production section[edit]

Filming began soon after the series was cast. The film crew recorded the students on campus, at home, with their friends and families, at medical appointments, and on outings to transgender-related events. Some footage was recorded by the students themselves. In February 2005, the administration at Smith College prohibited the film crew from continuing to film on campus. Lucas Cheadle. the student whom the crew had been recording, asked the dean of students to reconsider, but his appeal was denied. Cheadle said he felt that, despite his academic success, the administration was ashamed of him. -- Uncited.
Principal photography finished in 2005 at the end of spring term. Some pick-up shots recorded the following summer became part of an epilogue in the final episode. -- Uncited

Normally, this would be a quick-fail.

Why is this uncited? Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. They didn't have citations since they're taken from the series itself, but I added inline refs to the relevant episodes. —Ringbang (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted[edit]

Promoted. Thank you to Ringbang for the helpful responses on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Ringbang (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]