Talk:Be More/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review this, hopefully within the next few days. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Link storyboarding
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions BMO without explaining who he is (like you did for the others). Consider adding brief blurb about him?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link Tompkins and McCann twice in lead; in fact, you can just remove the second mention of them (in the second paragraph)
Removed!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a reliable source? I've never heard of the site before.
It's a Q&A-type site. The person I'm citing, "MrMuto", is Adam Muto, the show's co-executive producer. He answers fan questions about aspects of the show through the site.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And is "For unknown reasons," your interpretation or the source's? (I'm having trouble accessing it).
I just removed it, since I could see how it was close to POV.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I inevitably ask this for many Adventure Time episodes, but aren't there any other reviews you can use? Does IGN review the show? Or EW? io9?
It's kind of spotty. More recent episodes have been reviewed by io9, but not this one. Only A.V. Club did it, as of now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The episode first saw physical release..." -- "Physical" seems odd. Try "commercial release"?
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use "episode" quite a bit in the article, which can make reading it a little boring; could you try sprinkling in other words (such as installment, or just using the episode's title more often?)
I deleted a few repetitions of the word.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will place review on hold for usual 7 days. I'll check back here once you've replied to my comments for a final run-through. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 01:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I did some digging too for anything else on this episode via Google, and nothing really came up. You did a good job exhausting the existing sources. Nice work! Passing now. I'm not sure if AT DVDs include special features on episode production, but that might be a good place to also look). Ruby 2010/2013 01:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]