Talk:Adventure Time season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it upon myself to review this article! --Khanassassin ☪ 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Well-written, although I can't see a source for the "viral" statement; and, if this is true, it must be repeated in the body of the article.
Good catch. I added a sentence (with a source) near the beginning of the production section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Concept and creation

"Common storylines revolve around Finn and Jake discovering strange creatures, the duo battling the Ice King and rescuing princesses, Finn and Jake battling monsters in order to help others, and Finn attempting to understand his attraction to Bubblegum." Why "Fin and Jake", then "the duo", and again, "Fin and Jake"? Or couldn't it be simply: "Common storylines revolve around Finn and Jake discovering strange creatures, battling the Ice King and rescuing princesses or battling monsters in order to help others, and Finn attempting to understand his attraction to Bubblegum."
How's this: "Common storylines revolve around: Finn and Jake discovering strange creatures, battling the Ice King, and battling monsters in order to help others. Various other episodes deal with Finn attempting to understand his attraction towards Bubblegum."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way better than my option!
"...the Max Fleischer cartoons,.." Wouldn't "Max Fleischer's" sound, or read, a bit better?
I changed it to "various Max Fleischer cartoons".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"The show began as a single stand-alone animated short which ran for just seven minutes." Oh my lord. Just seven minutes? Just seven? Damn, that's incomparable to the 11 minute episodes in the series! And, pff, how can a short be so short..? Huh? Answer that. :)
Haha, good point. I cut the 'just' from the sentence, because I felt it was a bit POV-y.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...'an oblivious Princess Bubblegum'..." I think "Princess Bubblegum" (and "an") should be thrown out of the quotation mark -- there's nothing particularly "quotable" about it.
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Fine.

Reception

Ratings

Fine.

Reviews and accolades

"...although the series did not win." I though an episode, not the series, was nominated.
Opps. Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

Well-written, but do the voice actors cited (along with their characters) in the "Cast" section really need to be repeated?
I just did this because the episode boxes are kind of a separate entity (I generally think of the article as lede, main body, and episode boxes) so I reiterated just in case like I've been doing for The Office season two, eight, and season nine. If you want me to remove them, I can. It's no big deal.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, your right. Wouldn't look nice if only some characters would have their voice actors next to them in brackets, lol. :)

DVD release

Okay, but the region 1 and 2 release date sections each taking a quarter of the table and the region 4 release date taking half just doesn't seem right. Is there no way to fix it? I've had trouble with tables to, and this is just a personal preference, I guess.
Unfortunately, I can't find a way to do this. I struggled with this when I was working on various seasons of The X-Files, but this seems to be the best work around, although it truly isn't perfect. Someone tried to fix it, but it just jacked the whole section up. I could also kill the region 4 info and then have two nice columns instead of two equal sized ones, and one big one.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tables can be tricky. I'll let it slide for now, although it might not do well at FLC. Just a suggestion, you might try to split the special features section in two, so there'll be three, and... oh, you know what I mean. :)

Overall, a nice good article, or list, or whatever -- Just a Lil Bit ( ;) ) more work is needed. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm glad to give this article/list_{of a notoriously overrated show (sorry)}a Pass! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]