Talk:Beyond Blunderdome/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• First instance of United States should be linked.

Y Done --Maitch (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot

• The 2nd sentence should have how the car was destroyed, as being run in the Springfield harbour.

• A plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words per WP:TVPLOT guidelines. The current one is 483 words. I can't go into every detail of the episode. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some things should be moved to an other paragraph.

• The section follows the three act structure of the episode. I don't se why we should break that. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• ", run for it" should be changed. How about "runs away with the film."?

• Y Done --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wording should be changed alot.

• Please be more specific. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • Did myself. Simple copyediting doesn't make me a main contributor. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Production and themes

Nothing found.

Release and reception

Nothing found.

References

• References 4 to 9 could be put into a general reference and distinguished by the timing and a word, like:

=== General references ===
* Scully, Mike (2008). Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". The Simpsons: The Complete Eleventh Season (DVD). 20th Century Fox.
=== References ===
^ Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". Event occurs at 13:01-13:07. 
^ Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". Event occurs at 1:49-2:10.

• I see. I have made some changes based on your suggestions. However, I used some variation of the Harvard citation style that used the "cite video" template for consistency instead. --Maitch (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fine by me.
• I think that archiving reference 16 would be a good idea.

• Ref 16 is a real newspaper, so I don't know what you mean by archiving it. --Maitch (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oups, ref 19. WebCite it. So I did it, now it's at http://www.webcitation.org/647zrWxCS. Just put in the archive url and date. Archived today (Dec 22 2011 | 2011/12/22).

Discussion

I might of forgot some things, so I'm putting this in 2nd opinion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The current split of references is somehow inconsistent: the shorthand footnotes are interleaved with ordinary references. The DVD comment separated gives the impression of being a primary source. I would suggest to split out the footnotes to a separate section (and possibly switch them to {{sfn}} for ease of access) and provide the references as a simple bullet list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Hold for 7 days. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have switched the citations to the Harvard style and moved the DVD commentaries below the references, so it does not appear as primary sources. --Maitch (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the word Bibliography. Otherwise looks better IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Sources now. --Maitch (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that the prose has a room for improvement. Eg., the mention of "George Kennedy Airport" in the last paragraph of Production and themes is split in two sentences without any visible reason and is absolutely disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. Such things are supposed to be eliminated to pass 1a criterion. I hope Ebe123 can take time to look for the similar issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the George Kennedy thing. --Maitch (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I didn't dive in detail, overall seems OK to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)