Talk:Timewasters/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 October 2025 (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

I will review this one for the drive. Before I start though, I do recommend addressing the "20-minute assessment" on the talk page courtesy of Spookyaki. The only comment I disagree with is regarding the Oxford commas, otherwise known as serial commas. As per MOS:OXFORD, you don't have to remove Oxford commas; they just have to be consistent. Lazman321 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity! I will try to address the assessment in the next few days. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I've responded to the assessment. I did not make changes for a couple things because I wasn't sure the preferred route to take:

• Whether primary sources are sufficient for citing the recurring and guest cast or if I should perhaps trim down that list to the most notable. I believe my intent at the time of writing was to define the cast later mentioned in the episode summaries.
• Whether removing the last (unsourced) sentence in the US remake section would make the article look incomplete.

I look forward to your review. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, at the present moment, I'm burnt out due to IRL. Do expect a review over the weekend. Lazman321 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I'm back and ready to review. Lazman321 (talk)

1 - Well written

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

While I've never seen a references section use the heading "Footnotes" before, it does appear to comply with the relevant reference layout guidelines. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

Little Black Book and Geek Girl Authority appear to be unreliable and should be removed or replaced with better sources. Additionally, I don't recognize Just Focus and cannot find any discussion on it; I'm gonna take it up with WP:RSN. Finally, while The Guardian and probably the RTS sources would be reliable for the production section, they aren't reviews and thus shouldn't be used in the reception section. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

2c - No original research

This is where I usually do spot-checks of the sources, but given what I am requesting in the review, I'll hold off for now. In the meantime, I do oppose keeping that sentence about the US remake potentially being cancelled due to the lack of recent press releases. Unless there is a reliable source confirming that, it is, by definition, original research. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

Are you sure this article covers the "main aspects" of the topic. First of all, I don't even see a premise section. Second, the development, production, and themes sections are quite bare-bones. I suggest combining and expanding them. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

3b - Focused

There are two parts of this article that give me pause. First, the music section mentions an official soundtrack posted on Soundcloud and the tracks used in Timewasters. Without secondary coverage, this feels like unnecessary detail. Second, the reception section goes into detail on what the different writers from the RTS thought of Timewasters. Given that the RTS isn't even the most well-known source used in this section, this feels like indiscriminate details that very few would be interested, especially since the sources used aren't even reviews. In fact, even if the RTS was the most well-known, I don't think it's necessary to mention what the chairman mentioned off-hand in a livestream. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

At the moment, no issues with the article's neutrality. Opinions are attributed to critics, with everything else being stated plainly. While the reception section does seem very positive, all of the reviews I could find of Timewasters were positive, with only minor complaints. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

5 - Stable

No ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one image in the article, the title card, has a valid fair-use rationale. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The one image in the article is relevant due to it being the title card of the series. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

@Reidgreg: There's quite a bit to be addressed in this article. As such, I will be putting this review on hold for seven days to give you a chance to address them. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: You have a day left and there has been no activity as far as I can see. If no attempt is made at addressing these concerns, I will have no choice but to fail this nomination. Lazman321 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Thanks for the review! It's become apparent that I don't have time to rewrite the article right now, but I would like to briefly go over some of your comments so I'll be prepared when I can return to this in the future.

• Good call on the Royal Television Society; I feel most of that can be worked into Themes to bulk up that section.
• You noted that Production and Development were short (good idea to combine them!) but didn't mention Release, by far the shortest L2 section. I'm not sure it's part of GACRIT, but some reviewers do like equal-length L2 sections, is there anything you feel could combine with that?
• For a Premise section, I've been wary of restating the plot more than once. (Sufficing to about 45 words of sourced premise in the lead). The sixth paragraph of MOS:TVPLOT states that An article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary. In other TV GAs, I've moved the episode list to a separate List of X episodes article, but in this case the episode list is relatively short (12 episodes) and I wasn't sure that it made sense to split it, and also there's the problem of the split list article being all summary with no analysis. Any advice on how to resolve this?

Would appreciate any clarification or thoughts. Sorry again about abandoning this, barely have time to jot this down right now. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. Your IRL stuff is more important than Wikipedia. About your comments above, I usually see the release/broadcast section merged with the reception section, and MOS:TVPLOT as guidelines regarding premise sections, which generally are for when plot summaries are relegated to the episode tables. In any case, I'd be willing to work with you on this article again in the future, if you'd like. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.