Talk:Adventure Time season 8/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose length is appropriate with an article of this size. I was able to quickly learn what the article was about by just reading the prose so it is definitely clear and concise. No Grammar mistakes in the article that I saw. I fixed two minor spelling issues I saw (ones that wouldn't come up in spell checker). Overall, a great prose and excellent Grammar and spelling throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with the style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I did not see any puffery or undue weight.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Provides an extensive list of sources for the article. Sources are presented in an appropriate way, but please try to avoid having four or more references on a single sentence as possible. Other than that, the references are okay.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most of the sources appear to be reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I saw no original research or speculations in the article. It appears the article is based off the sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations in the article or plagiarism detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the article are all thoroughly addressed in their respective sections.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	While the article itself is quite large, I do not feel that it goes into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The tone of the article is neutral and encyclopedic. I do not see evidence of editorial bias or any puffery in the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit warring, the article appears to be quite stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images in the article have their copyright status and the cover in the infobox has a fair usage rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images in the article are related to the topic as one is of a member of the development team and the two others are pictures of two guest stars. All three images have captions appropriately describing what they are.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this was a great article and I was happy to have had the opportunity to review it. Sorry you had to wait such a long time for a review, but the article quality was so good I was able to fix all the issues I found myself. Just try to stay away from using more than 3 sources on a single sentence as it will bloat the section when done several times. This article has officially passed and I hereby certify it as a good article.

@Figfires: Thanks for the review!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)