Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept. All concerns have been addressed regarding original review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the review at Talk:Secret Truths/GA1 was, to say the least, cursory and am asking for community reassessment of this article's status. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points:

• One dead link.[1] I think SaveSpashley.com is probably not RS
• ref #9: "Tom Lynch Interview 11/2/09". South of Nowhere Online. November 2, 2009. Would expect a web link for an online publication.
• After the casting process was complete, the episode was filmed in October 2004, but when the show was picked up for a full season, Lynch decided to recast almost every one of the characters and the pilot was shot again in July 2005 with the different cast. Clumsy phrasing, perhaps "with the new cast"
• The premiere of the episode was promoted with branded MetroCards handed out to teenagers in Manhattan. Again clusmsy phrasing.
• Critics' reviews of the pilot were mostly positive, particularly regarding its treatment of current social issues, but other critics found the show's introduction of these issues to be forced and inauthentic. Again clumsy phrasing
• After striking up a conversation with a girl named Chelsea Lewis (Aasha Davis), he is beaten up by her ex-boyfriend Dallas (Marcus Brown) when he tries to defend her. Unclear- who is defending who?
• He "sat with the idea for a few days" before spending a few weeks to develop the show's characters and write an outline of the pilot. Poor grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the more thorough review. You're right about those instances of bad grammar/wording - I've (hopefully) made all of them a bit easier to read. The ref to South of Nowhere Online isn't linked because the site is blacklisted on Wikipedia (I assume somebody did some serious spamming with it at some point). I removed the ref with the dead link completely. 97198 (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my concerns have been addressed and this article is worthy of GA status. There may be others who will chip in as this is a community re-assessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]