Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to get through this review by the end of this weekend, but since it is fairly long and has a lot of links, it might take me a few days. In the meantime, I would like to alert the contributing editors to the disambig links and external links in the toolbox on the right since there are some dead links that need to be dealt with. Thanks. --Tea with toast (話) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both disamb and broken links fixed. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with references needing to be sorted out

(Citation numbers are as of this version.)

The following refs need to have the work cited (e.g. name of the magazine or website or such): #33, 54, 57, 69
Ref #71, please fix the capitalization of the author's name
Ref #79, I believe should attribute the source to Donna Bowman (this is a little tricky to figure out, I know. The initials DB are given to the paragraph about My Little Pony, and Donna Bowman is listed as one of the authors at the top).
A citation is needed for a tagged sentence in the "Other arenas" section
In the second paragraph of the "Brony" section, is the sentence "They receive more than 500,000 visits a day...". The word "they" is vaguely attributed to both Equestria Daily and Ponychan suggesting that either both receive that may views, or both of them together equal that many views. But beyond that is a problem with both of the sources that are cited. Ref #24 is a Times article that cites 175,000 views from a Wired source (you need cite the original Wired source here). Ref #25, throws the word "500,000" out, but I didn't catch what internet site it was referring to. I think it would be best to find another source.

I will put this article on hold for one week until these issues are sorted out. Thanks and happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 01:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the sourcing in the Other Arenas section, the rest are fixed. I do need to look for the sourcing that should exist for that one statement but need time to check. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now that's sourced, so all points addressed. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(As of July 31, 2012)

Ref #26, please correct the spelling of the author's name to Lisa Hix (also applies to My Little Pony and Equestria Daily entries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.249.24 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is good enough for GA, but could use some work. See notes below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
See comments below.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
While this article does meet all the requirements to make it a Good Article, it could still use a bit of polishing to improve it. See comments below. Thanks to all the editors who have worked hard on this article and have addressed the issues above. Good work! --Tea with toast (話) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

While this article meets all the requirements of GA, and I find no reason to fail it, the article does lack a bit of clarity and would definitely require some more work if it is to survive a FA nomination.

One of the biggest areas for improvement is in cleaning up the prose. I see that a request has been made for this article at the Guild of Copy Editors for a copy edit, and I hope a good editor can help fix things up. There are several paragraphs that could be better shaped so that the text can flow better. I think part of the reason why the text feels so cumbersome is because there is a lot of needless information, which brings me to my next point...
I would advise contributors of this article to remove any unnecessary content. There is just a little too much accessory material here that one can get a bit lost. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article meant to convey the meaning of the topic, not to document every bit of fandom on the web.
I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of the sources. While acceptable in some contexts, blogging websites are generally not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. (Being that the topic of the article is largely web-based, I thought it might be acceptable, but I don't know if it will stand for FA). For some of the content, if the information can not be verified by more reputable sources, then it may not be notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Again, this is a bit of a grey area, and I am uncertain how to advise you.

I hope these suggestions can help you out. Overall, I have enjoyed reviewing this article. Thanks again to the editors. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話)