Talk:Focus Grill/GA1
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I can't say I've ever heard of this cartoon, but I have reviewed a lot of similar articles.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- See below.
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Could you talk me through why Digitally Obsessed and The Numbers are reliable?
- A. References to sources:
- Digitally Obsessed is a comprehensive DVD review site which has been cited in other episode article GA's, namely those of lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Well, who runs them? Who writes them? Are they professionals? Are they spin-off websites from other reliable publications? They look like sources I'd like to trust, but I'm not sure if they're technically reliable sources Wikipedia-wise. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Digitally Obsessed: This states that their reviewers must meet a series of requirements, including writing prowess, technical requirements, age, and knowledge of their field. Credible news sources citing/reporting on/analyzing it include Ludington Daily News newspaper, 2002, the Herald Journal, 2007 (which cites an interview it did; it's the paragraph opening with the quote "I was the best television director[...]" in the "TV sports pioneer dies at 75" article), among others.
- The Numbers is similar to DO's requirements, but has been established longer and has been noted for its availability to industry professionals and investors. More here, which I think sums it up better. Cited by a bunch of newspapers here, and called among the "leading box office tracking websites" by National Ledger. (Again, though, it's mainly a box office website, but apparently also does reviews for DVD's—the relation of the two baffles me, but alas :P) lack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Ok, I can rock with that. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, who runs them? Who writes them? Are they professionals? Are they spin-off websites from other reliable publications? They look like sources I'd like to trust, but I'm not sure if they're technically reliable sources Wikipedia-wise. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Digitally Obsessed is a comprehensive DVD review site which has been cited in other episode article GA's, namely those of
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- I can't help feel you drift off-topic a little in the production section... In such a short article, it's very noticable.\
- A. Major aspects:
- Er, how so? The section covers a) the brief crew, and an interesting note about its position as the 52nd episode, then b) the reason behind it being the last episode, c) Small writing it and certain things he kept in mind/analyzed/etc., and finally c) brief bit about the animation in the episode. I don't see any off-topic material there... lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- The second paragraph seems to be about the series generally rather than the episode. I'm sorry I can't give more specific advice- can you see what I'm saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, but this is the series finale, so information on why it was canceled is basically essential. Or do you disagree...? lack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Perhaps open the paragraph by clarifying the relevance... "[writer] knew before writing the episode that it would be the last" or something. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, consider that done. =D lack of surprise 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Alright, consider that done. =D
- Perhaps open the paragraph by clarifying the relevance... "[writer] knew before writing the episode that it would be the last" or something. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, but this is the series finale, so information on why it was canceled is basically essential. Or do you disagree...?
- The second paragraph seems to be about the series generally rather than the episode. I'm sorry I can't give more specific advice- can you see what I'm saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Er, how so? The section covers a) the brief crew, and an interesting note about its position as the 52nd episode, then b) the reason behind it being the last episode, c) Small writing it and certain things he kept in mind/analyzed/etc., and finally c) brief bit about the animation in the episode. I don't see any off-topic material there...
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- Could you talk me through why you've chosen that image in particular? It just looks a bit like (what I gather the to be) the three main characters stood together- not the most representative image of this episode in particular.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
- I mainly picked it because it's both high-quality and demonstrates the characters at a pivotal moment for the show (in which they decide their movies are made specifically for them). I could replace it with a shot of the camera breaking in the final scene, which is actually discussed more in the article. lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Yeah, that's what I thought- I get the impression from the article that that is the iconic moment. If you feel the current screenshot is better, I am happy to trust your judgement. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I mainly picked it because it's both high-quality and demonstrates the characters at a pivotal moment for the show (in which they decide their movies are made specifically for them). I could replace it with a shot of the camera breaking in the final scene, which is actually discussed more in the article.
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- It's good, but I can't help feeling there's something a little lacking.
- Pass or Fail:
- "Brendon, Melissa, and Jason" is there a character list or something we can link to?
- They already are linked, at least in the body. Are you referring to the intro or image caption, perhaps? lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- The lead- you could link them in the caption if you like, but that may well be overkill. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- They already are linked, at least in the body. Are you referring to the intro or image caption, perhaps?
- "he had for" that would be "he had had for", but that whole paragraph is a little odd- I think I see what you're trying to get across, but could you rephrase it?
- Fixed. Also, what seems a tad odd about it? And by "rephrase", are you referring to "he had had for" or the entire paragraph? lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- The entire paragraph- it doesn't read that well. Just try and phrase it differently? J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've reworded/half-rewrote it, should be better now. lack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Okay, I've reworded/half-rewrote it, should be better now.
- The entire paragraph- it doesn't read that well. Just try and phrase it differently? J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Also, what seems a tad odd about it? And by "rephrase", are you referring to "he had had for" or the entire paragraph?
- "Fenton, Junior, Perry, and Walter" Again, links? Not such a big deal if there isn't here, as there is some context.
- I could link to the character list again, but they don't have any sections on it to actually link to. lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- No, that's fine then. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could link to the character list again, but they don't have any sections on it to actually link to.
- "by the focus group" a bit repetitive.
- I see what you mean—Fixed. lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- I see what you mean—Fixed.
- "not be actually" not actually be
- Fixed. lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Fixed.
- "which is run" where it is run
- Fixed. lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Fixed.
- "their's" !!!!!
- Fixed, lol. :P lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- Fixed, lol. :P
- Not really seeing the need for three paragraphs in the lead.
- Is it much of a problem? I just think it's better summarized thusly. lack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- I just think it would look better in one or two paragraphs. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just fear it would be clumped, if you get what I'm saying. Especially with the rewritten version of the second paragraph that stands now. lack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)]
- I just fear it would be clumped, if you get what I'm saying. Especially with the rewritten version of the second paragraph that stands now.
- I just think it would look better in one or two paragraphs. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is it much of a problem? I just think it's better summarized thusly.
- Promoted. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)