Jump to content

Talk:At the Movies (Rugrats)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Not sure where this fits, so I will put it here- I think the title should be At the Movies (Rugrats episode) instead- I accept it can go both ways. Do we have any MOS guidance on this?

The title meets WP:MOSTV naming style guidelines; adding "episode" is only used when the title is something like "Mr. Burns (The Simpsons episode)" to differentiate between the two existing subjects. The Flash {talk} 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds fine. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Minor notes below
    B. MoS compliance:
    Ditto
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    What is Point of Purchase, and why is it reliable?
I found the article on a website featuring multiple publications from throughout the country. If I'm not mistaken, it's some kind of print media or other form of publication. The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    "The episode received a generally positive response." is based off one review. Do we have no other reviews at all?
Unfortunately, that's all there is. Remember, this is an episode of a kids cartoon that aired in 1991. The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that, but I would say that that means we are not in a position to make the statement. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    You seem to really get off the point when discussing Reptar... I get the impression this stuff should be in an article on Reptar, not on this episode. The issue regarding the award nomination is also a little misleading- that nomination was for the video, not the episode, and that is not made as clear as it could be.
I tried chopping it down a bit, so tell me if it's fine now. How would you like me to adjust the nomination? The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on Reptar is better. I would be inclined to say the video award does not belong in the lead. I would also say that the line "In 2000, it and the other selected episodes featured in Rugrats: Return of Reptar was nominated for Video Software Dealers Association's Home Entertainment Award for "Outstanding Marketing Campaign for a Major Direct-to-Video Release."" (which actually doesn'ty make sense) Should be changed to "In 2000, Rugrats: Return of Reptar, on which the episode featured, was nominated for Video Software Dealers Association's Home Entertainment Award for "Outstanding Marketing Campaign for a Major Direct-to-Video Release." or something similar. The current wording makes it sound like it is the episodes winning the award, rather than the video. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Note above about the reviews.
  2. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The lead image is excellent and has a solid rationale. I am less certain the other is necessary- the parody can be mentioned in text, and is hardly an integral part of the episode- I'm not sure it needs to be illustrated by two non-free images.
Still, I believe it helps give a visual reference to something that is possibly unvisable by certain readers who have never seen neither the episode nor Care Bears. The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but does that point really need to be made? The issue is more a point of interest than central to the episode. I'm really not convinced the images meet non-free content criterion 8. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, replaced it with a free-use image. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold. There are a few things that need to be dealt with here. I have mixed feelings about this article- a lot of the discussion seems to be a little off-topic.


  • Link character names to character lists?
  • "Didi and Stu" in the lead; links there would be good. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reptar! He" Full stop after "!"?
  • Yeah, so we need a full stop after the "!", I believe. Just as you wouldn't finish a sentence as U.S. without an additional full stop. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, yes- you'll probably know it as a period :) J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who getting popcorn" Who is?
  • "including "Reptar 2010" and" A redlink or a link to an episode list would be good.
  • "as well as marked the first time" Tense doesn't seem to be quite right here.
  • "Official Reptar cereal"- could be rephrased.
  • ""Slumber Party."" Link?
  • valentines is a dablink, and would more correctly be Valentine's
  • Is there not a category for Rugrats episodes? Or one for Rugrats generally?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:At_the_Movies_(Rugrats)/GA1&oldid=1136294340"