GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | One of my very few reviews where there are quibbles, below, but much less concerns with the writing style. Quite good job here. I checked with the Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox at the top of this GA Review subpage -- and its result was -- "Violation Unlikely 21.3% confidence". This is wonderful! GA Nominator and contributors to the article are to be commended! Thank you! | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | For an article of this size, lede intro sect could be much larger. Recommend expansion to four (4) paragraphs of at least four sentences each. Please be more specific and less vague in lede sect "positively received by television critics" which critics? which publications? "Even though the show received criticism for its jokes and animation" what was wrong with the jokes? what did the critics point out about the animation? which critics? Some layout issues: Please retitle sect Influence as just Reception or Critical reception. Then, move Legacy info to its own parent two-level sect. Then, move Accolades to top of sect. Change current Critical reception sect to Reviews. Audience info can be moved into Broadcast and release, as it is all contemporary with the timeline of the release. Accolades sect can then be moved to the top of the new Critical reception or Reception sect. After that's done, the layout will look much, much better. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | See below re in-line citations for image captions. Otherwise, great job here. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Eleven (11) or more, links, have link problems, as shown by Checklinks tool you can find in the GA Toolbox at the top of this page. Please archive those to Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive using WP:CIT citation fields of archiveurl and archivedate. Strongly recommend archiving all other hyperlinks in same manner. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article most certainly relies upon a vast preponderance of secondary sources. No issues here. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article does indeed address major aspects of topic, quite well. No issues here. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article is large, but also good because it is comprehensive. No issues here. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Very large Critical reception sect, but not enough mention or summary of it, in the lede intro sect, to adequately summarize various points-of-view so as to have an ideally neutral presentation. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Please explain recent problems in article edit history as recent as 16 October 2015. You may want to request semi-protection. Have you tried to post to the users's talk pages that added the info in question, to explain to them what's going on here? Please explain this a bit more. IFF the article is stable after the 7 day period, hopefully that should be okay for the GA Criteria, we'll see. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | A few problem images: File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - please add a more detailed fair use rationale, in the form of a numbered point-by-point argumentation for why the image is fair use, and see for example the way I did it myself in the infobox image for the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise - this would go in the sect on the image page Purpose of use. File:Phil.lamarr.2014.jpg - please move this image to Commons, there are helpful tools to assist you with this, at Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, and I personally recommend User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good, though others are good, as well. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - please expand fair use argumentation in Purpose of use sect on this image page, another model you can look at is the way I did it for the infobox image at article, The Land of Gorch. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Some images have in-line citations for captions, while others do not. As you already do this, please make sure all images have in-line citations for info asserted in captions, except for infobox image which is okay. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Not too much left holding this one up. Address above, and I'll revisit, and then we should be all set to promote, after that, hopefully. :) — Cirt ( talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
A few holdups. Unfortunately, GA Nominator resistance indicates review is trending closer to being failed than being passed. I will revisit one more time before failing the article. — Cirt ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We're close enough on a few minor disagreements that it's no big deal. :)
Passed as GA.
Thanks very much to GA Nominator for the polite and professional demeanor throughout, and for such responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt ( talk) 23:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | One of my very few reviews where there are quibbles, below, but much less concerns with the writing style. Quite good job here. I checked with the Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox at the top of this GA Review subpage -- and its result was -- "Violation Unlikely 21.3% confidence". This is wonderful! GA Nominator and contributors to the article are to be commended! Thank you! | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | For an article of this size, lede intro sect could be much larger. Recommend expansion to four (4) paragraphs of at least four sentences each. Please be more specific and less vague in lede sect "positively received by television critics" which critics? which publications? "Even though the show received criticism for its jokes and animation" what was wrong with the jokes? what did the critics point out about the animation? which critics? Some layout issues: Please retitle sect Influence as just Reception or Critical reception. Then, move Legacy info to its own parent two-level sect. Then, move Accolades to top of sect. Change current Critical reception sect to Reviews. Audience info can be moved into Broadcast and release, as it is all contemporary with the timeline of the release. Accolades sect can then be moved to the top of the new Critical reception or Reception sect. After that's done, the layout will look much, much better. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | See below re in-line citations for image captions. Otherwise, great job here. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Eleven (11) or more, links, have link problems, as shown by Checklinks tool you can find in the GA Toolbox at the top of this page. Please archive those to Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive using WP:CIT citation fields of archiveurl and archivedate. Strongly recommend archiving all other hyperlinks in same manner. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article most certainly relies upon a vast preponderance of secondary sources. No issues here. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article does indeed address major aspects of topic, quite well. No issues here. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article is large, but also good because it is comprehensive. No issues here. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Very large Critical reception sect, but not enough mention or summary of it, in the lede intro sect, to adequately summarize various points-of-view so as to have an ideally neutral presentation. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Please explain recent problems in article edit history as recent as 16 October 2015. You may want to request semi-protection. Have you tried to post to the users's talk pages that added the info in question, to explain to them what's going on here? Please explain this a bit more. IFF the article is stable after the 7 day period, hopefully that should be okay for the GA Criteria, we'll see. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | A few problem images: File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - please add a more detailed fair use rationale, in the form of a numbered point-by-point argumentation for why the image is fair use, and see for example the way I did it myself in the infobox image for the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise - this would go in the sect on the image page Purpose of use. File:Phil.lamarr.2014.jpg - please move this image to Commons, there are helpful tools to assist you with this, at Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, and I personally recommend User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good, though others are good, as well. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - please expand fair use argumentation in Purpose of use sect on this image page, another model you can look at is the way I did it for the infobox image at article, The Land of Gorch. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Some images have in-line citations for captions, while others do not. As you already do this, please make sure all images have in-line citations for info asserted in captions, except for infobox image which is okay. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Not too much left holding this one up. Address above, and I'll revisit, and then we should be all set to promote, after that, hopefully. :) — Cirt ( talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
A few holdups. Unfortunately, GA Nominator resistance indicates review is trending closer to being failed than being passed. I will revisit one more time before failing the article. — Cirt ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We're close enough on a few minor disagreements that it's no big deal. :)
Passed as GA.
Thanks very much to GA Nominator for the polite and professional demeanor throughout, and for such responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt ( talk) 23:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)