Talk:A Piñata Named Desire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Queenieacoustic (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will add suggestions soon.

Comments

The entire first paragraph of the Production section just has the episode as its source. I'm pretty sure this isn't considered reliable. Also, the paragraph reads like a list of staff members. Remember, this is not IMDB. Just listing staff members like "animation producers" and "production managers" isn't at all important as to how the episode came to fruition, etc. The episode's writer(s) and director(s) is enough. The paragraph also goes into unnecessary detail (we don't need to know what the staff has worked on before), so I can't pass it for being focused either.

The link used as source for the second paragraph doesn't specifically mention that Lucy Lawless gueststarred in the episode. Although I'm certain you can find other sources for it, as it is, it is considered Original Research. And what else, the section is also worded awkwardly: This would be the first episode that both writers would write, why the "woulds"? And you shouldn't refer to the episode as "This": either write "A Piñata Named Desire" or "It", like: "A Piñata Named Desire" was the first episode that both writers wrote etc.

And that's just one section! But to be fair, it was the worst looking one, and the Reception section, while it has some awkward sentences (He praised the main plot, find it hilarious) (...saying the show is "is back in fine form tonight,), is probably the best written of the bunch. But still, I'm sorry to say, this article has a long way to go until it can become a GA. I suggest you ask for a peer review so that it can be improved upon. Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd usually use IMDB sources for American Dad episode, but IMDB sources are discouraged for articles, especially if they are trying to nominate it for GA or FA. DAP388 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011