Talk:Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take three days for me to complete my initial review (I am unable to edit on weekends). I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    "a land full of automobiles" I think sentient (or a synonym) should be added in front of automobiles for clarity.
    I think Cycle World should be linked in the prose.
    Why is this section arranged by voice actor instead of character? I think it would be more effective in the opposite order. As is, the protagonist and antagonist are currently lumped into the same bullet point.
    Done – I did some "flip-flopping" and separated the protagonist and antagonist. Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    Per WP:PROTAGONIST, Wheelie should be described as the lead or star, not the protagonist.
    Done – I used "lead" instead of "protagonist". Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    "Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch premiered nearly one year after the debut of Speed Buggy in 1973" - suggest "Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch premiered in 1973, nearly one year after the debut of Speed Buggy, another Hanna-Barbera cartoon with similar themes.
    Done – Took your suggestion. Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    I suggest relocating the Broadcast subsection from reception to production and locating it between the current paragraphs. This is in line with FA article Ed, Edd n Eddy and clarifies that it was still being aired when Bryne's comic was commissioned.
    Done – Relocated the section and added appropriate sub-titles. Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    " his first "full issue" series of comic books" - what does "full issue" mean? That he did art for the full issue? That he did pencils and inks? Pencils, inks, and scripting?
    Done – Removed "full issue" because I believe the sentence (as it is) gives the same effect. Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    I think it's worth mentioning the comics were published by Charlton Comics.
    Done – Added. Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    "According to Byrne himself, he also felt... " - I think "Byrne also said he felt..." reads more smoothly.
    Done – Took your suggestion. Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    no concerns
    no concerns
    no concerns
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    no concern
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concerns
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Ear wig results are for common phrases like the title. No concern
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    no concerns
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concerns
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concerns
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no ongoing conflicts or vandalism.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    no concern
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass pending responses to concerns listed above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    Argento Surfer – Thank you so much for the review! I changed the article accordingly and left you some comments above. Please let me know if you need any additional information from me. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
    Nice work. Easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)