Talk:Bully for Steve

Bully for Steve was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 7, 2014	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bully for Steve/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 03:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nothing witty to say, so let's get to it, then.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
There's a few unusual turns of phrase in here that I'd like to see gone - "as they all wrote and directed its previous episode" should be "the previous episode", for example, whilst "Stan models as a bully" seems bizarre. Having not seen the episode, I'm going to assume this is a mangling of the phrase "poses as", which would be better. I'll probably change these myself though, if they prove to be the only issues.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS compliant, no problem there
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Decently sourced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are made appropriately

C. No original research:
No OR here, everything is verifiably cited.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Hits all the points it needs to

B. Focused:
Doesn't stray into stranger lands, stays with the episode in question
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Seems neutral. Reception section is mostly positive but it seems that's simply due to the overall reception being mostly positive, so not an issue.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is stable. Many edits but nothing contentious or debated.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Lead image is the only one, and it seems to pass fair use to me.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Lead image is used in the correct place and captioned appropriately. Article does not strike me as needing further images so this being the only one is not a negative.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. The only issues I found with it were some grammatical oddities, but given the relative triviality there, I'll go ahead and fix those myself.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bully for Steve/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The problem is with criterion (2):

On the basis that all citations are online resources, only ref#2,5,6 can be verified.
Only ref# 5 and 6 are reliable sources. Ref#2 is from IMDb, which is unacceptable.

Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is responding in 3 day it will be delisted.Forbidden User (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted.Forbidden User (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.