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:
    Premise
    "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.
    Characters
    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).
    Production
    "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).
    Episodes
    no concerns
    Reception
    no concerns
    Lead
    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)