Talk:MyPods and Boomsticks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 22:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this one a look. —Ed!^(talk) 22:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet
- "It was the most watched show on Fox on its original airing, and received fairly positive reviews from television critics." -- As in, the most watched that evening? That season? That month? Clarity needed.
- Plot: It's typical to name the voice actors after each character's first mention.
- Guest appearance in the infobox needs a citation.
- Any details on when this episode was produced or dates?
- Did the show ever tackle Islam again? Would be good to reference in light of the milestone mentioned at the bottom.
- I do spot a bit of consternation about the episode at the time of its release [1] as well as a critique of how the show handled Islam in a subsequent episode [2].
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Source Spotcheck Refs 2, 4 & 10 all back up subject material cited in the article.
- Ref 11 seems to be redirecting to the wrong article. Can you find a new link?
- Two dead links in the article. Could you fix?
It is broad in its coverage:
- Plot is about 330 words, well within reason for MOS:PLOT standards.
- I thought I recalled (and I might be wrong) that some writers online had considered this episode a critique of birtherism in light of the recent election, did you find any sources to that effect online?
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass Article cites a diverse set of sources to different contexts.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Two headshots used appropriately in the article and cited to proper copyrights.
Other: Dup links, dab links tools both show no problems. Copyvio tool returns green.
On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I notice now that the user who nominated this article has been blocked from editing. Though, I do think the article has potential should these comments be addressed. I will hold the GAN open for the requisite number of days to allow for any other enterprising editors to make the changes as they desire, or else withdraw it as necessary. —Ed!^(talk) 00:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no significant changes to the article at this point, going to Fail the GAN and remove it from the Queue. Would be happy to see it nominated again when some of these concerns are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]