Talk:SpongeBob vs. The Big One/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this one a review later today. Miyagawa (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here goes with the review:

Lead: Typically the lead of television episode follows a basic structure. What you've put in the lead follows that structure although in a different order to how I do them personally - but that's purely a personal taste and I think the order you've used is fine. However there are a couple of points.

I got caught out on this a while back, but you'll need to specify that it was an American production, which means you'll need to reorder the line "... 111th episode of the Nickelodeon animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants.". I would suggest "... 111th episode of the American animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants." dropping the Nickelodeon as you've mentioned it in the following sentence.
 Done
It would also be good if prior to the episode summary in the lead if there was a brief line describing what the series was for those who aren't familiar with it. I use a similar structure in my Star Trek articles as do the chaps for the X Files, The Office and other shows. Doesn't need to be more than a sentence and then immediately afterwards you'll have "In this episode, SpongeBob and his friends search for Jack Kahuna Laguna...".
added as suggested. Hope it's not that bad or something.
Also, and more for future use than this article as I wouldn't ask you to yank out citations - but you don't need to cite the lead normally unless there is something contentious or a quote.
 Done

Production:

You mention the air date here and you mention it again in reception. Probably best to semi-merge the two and move the comment about the 10th season anniversary into the reception section and remove the mention of the air date here.
I think there's nothing to do with here. The mention in the reception section was used to specify when was that.
No need for the caps on instant replay.
Fixed
The Brown Johnson quote - you've managed to lift the phrasing of the quote from the source completely. Please re-write that so that it isn't a copyright infringement (i.e. Nickelodeon animation president Brown Johnson said "....)
Fixed

Critical response:

The first inside pulse reference where the author isn't sure if it was released on TV - you can remove that, unless your trying to make the point that the episode was unmemorable.
Fixed

References:

First off #3 and #6 are the same source. But it also asks - what makes Toonbarn a reliable source?
Fixed
Similar question, what makes Toonzone a reliable source?
Why? Toon Zone, for me, is one of the best sites about television animation news, etc. The info given was just a press release.
I was more posing the question than saying it wasn't - I occasionally have the same problem with a couple of the Star Trek related sources I use in the episode articles I work on. In this particular instance, as it is a press release then it's fine. In fact, the mere point that they are being sent press releases makes the argument that the studio believes them to be notable enough, which in turn is a sign of the requirement. So I'm happy for it to be included. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, what makes Blogcritics and Your Hub reliable?
Removed Your Hub. I did not removed Blogcritics since, for me (again), the review is significant and should remain. According to their site "Blogcritics is an official Google News source, syndicates content to online editions of newspapers, and has won numerous awards."
That's fine. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources #27 and #36 are the same.
Fixed

Ok, so let me know once you've had a chance to look at those and I'll swing by for another check. I'll pop the review on hold until then. Miyagawa (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Miyagawa... thank you for taking this article to review! It's a pleasure. Thanks and have a nice day! I hope the article is enough to pass GA standards. Thanks! :) Mediran (tc) 13:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Great, I think this one now meets all the requirements of a GA and I'm happy for it to pass. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)