Talk:Patrick Star/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 09:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing this now. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:24, 1 July 2015 (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:

Infobox

Non-free use rationale is fine.
|alt parameters aren't required by GA criteria, but I think it would nice to include it anyway (e.g. |alt=A smiling pink starfish wearing green trunks).
- Done.
Template:Infobox character says "Any significant relationships that are essential to understanding the character" should be included in the "relationships" parameters, which I assume includes |relatives. I'm not sure any of the relatives listed in the infobox are essential to understanding Patrick; I suppose one could make a case for Herb and Margie, but the others all seem to be collections of trivia (or fancruft, to put it harshly) from various episodes. In my opinion, the only important relationship to understanding Patrick is his relationship with Spongebob, and maybe Squidward. If they don't get a place in the infobox, neither should Patar. Possibly, these characters could be mentioned in the "Role in Spongebob Squarepants" or "Reception" section if they've got significant coverage anywhere.
- It seems that the relationships parameter is not working. I've tried to add it but it didn't appear.
  - There are custom parameters for the infobox (e.g. |lbl21 and |data21), which could be used to put a "Friends" heading and "SpongeBob" in there, but I'm not sure it should. Either way, I still don't think that Patrick's relatives should be listed there.
    - Okay, removed relatives as they are somewhat trivial.

Role in Spongebob Squarepants

"Squidward [has] no patience for Patrick's stupidity, and [does] not pay him much regard." — I disagree with the second half of the sentence. Patrick's behaviour constantly irritates Squidward, who is often forced to confront him and attempt to fix problems he has caused; this, to me, does not fit the concept of not paying someone much regard. It seems to me like an accurate description for Mr. Krabs, but not for Squidward.
He holds no form of occupation except for several very brief stints... — There are two episodes sourced for this. "Several", to me, indicates at least four or five. If there are more episodes where he has held these positions (which strikes me as reasonably likely), they need to be mentioned here as well (you could perhaps include a bullet pointed list of every relevant episode inside a reference, to save space).
- Done

Creation and design

Reference #24 ([1]) says that production of Rocko's Modern Life ended in 1996.
- Yes, it does.
  - Okay, but my point was that "Rocko's Modern Life ended in 1996" sounds (to me) like it's talking about the last airing of the series, rather than production. Just adding "Production of" to the start of the sentence would fix this.
    - Fixed
"Described by the show creator..." — It strikes me as slightly odd to describe Hillenburg as "the show creator" when he has already been mentioned by name in the same paragraph. I think "Described by Hillenburg", although a bit repetitive, is best. I would also tag the word "later" onto the start of the sentence, because the quote seems to come from 2003 but in context, the quote might appear to be from some initial designing stages.
- Done.
"starfish look "dumb and slow", but in reality, they are "very active and aggressive", like Patrick." — I know this includes sourced quotes, but I think it still sounds like an opinion. Maybe try adding "according to Hillenburg" before/after.
- Done.
After the above two changes, you might want to shuffle around a few clauses or replace "Hillenburg" with "he" somewhere; this is how I would phrase the whole thing: For the show's characters, Hillenburg started to draw and used character designs from his comic book——including starfish, crab, and sponge.^[16] He described Patrick as "probably the dumbest guy in town".^[25] Patrick was conceived as a starfish to embody the animal's nature: according to Hillenburg, starfish look "dumb and slow", but they are "very active and aggressive" in reality, like Patrick.^[26]
- Done
I think in the quote "They're whipping themselves up into situations...", it would be better to use the original "they" and "themselves"; "he" just sounds odd when you've used the phrase "along with SpongeBob".
- Fixed
"Every main character in the show has its own unique footstep sound." — This seems like an abrupt change from discussing Patrick's tantrums; I think a new paragraph starting here is necessary.
- Fixed.
I think File:Patrick Star by Stephen Hillenburg (bible).jpg can just about qualify as fair use, but I'd like to improve the caption. What year is this picture from? Are there any sources or interviews with Hillenburg which say how Patrick changed since the early designs, or even that he has remained essentially the same? Is there any way we can include more "critical commentary on the work in question".
- I can't seem to find sources that detail that.
...writing its pilot episode in 1997... — I think "its" should be outside the link.
- Fixed
I don't think reference #33 ([2]) is relevant; the following reference ([3]) covers the fact that Fagerbakke played Dauber on Coach and also shows that the nickname "AquaDauber" was a reference to that.
- Fixed
The cast members record as a whole cast, which Fagerbakke describes, "It works so much better." — The grammar here doesn't quite make sense.
- Fixed?

I'll carry on with the review soon. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"Critical reception for the character from both professionals and fans has been positive." — The section does not discuss positive reception from fans, or provide a source for that claim.
- Will the information on the character's win at the Kids' Choice Awards do?
  - Ah, that's a good point. Yes, I think that's good enough.
"The episodes included [sic] are hilarious..." — I could be missing something obvious, but what's the point of the "[sic]" here?
- Fixed.
"She cited her favorite scene from the episode where..." — It took me a few seconds before I understood what this meant; a comma before "where" would have helped.
- Fixed
As with the pilot episode, I don't think "its" should be included in the link to 2014 Kids' Choice Awards (its 2014 ceremony).
- Fixed
"a recent article that pointed up the show's popularity" — surely this should be "pointed out".
- Fixed
Hillenburg responded about the SpongeBob's sexual orientation, saying SpongeBob is "[a] cheerful character [but] is not gay." — This seems like it would fit in SpongeBob SquarePants (character), but not here.
- Fixed
"...was criticized by a Christian evangelical group in the United States..." — Is this Christian evangelical group Focus on the Family? If so, this needs to be mentioned and linked.
- Done.
SpongeBob SquarePants (character) says "Dobson later stated that his comments were taken out of context and that his original complaints were not with SpongeBob or any of the characters in the video but with the organization that sponsored the video, the We Are Family Foundation. Dobson noted that the foundation had posted pro-homosexual material on its website, but later removed it.^[53]" This seems to be relevant in this article, too.
- Done
"Criticism and controversy" seems like a bit of a vague, euphemistic or even weasel-ish section heading; would something more descriptive, like "Sexuality" or "Alleged homosexuality", be better?
- I don't know; it's fine to me.
  - Fair enough; we'll stick with that, then.
This isn't required by GA criteria, but [4] is a dead link; an archive link to [5] would be nice.
- The link is not dead.
  - How odd. It does work for me now but I'm sure it didn't before.

In other media

I fail to see how a search result (ref #55; bullet point 1) is a valid source. Either some official list of SpongeBob merchandise including Patrick or an individual bullet point for each piece of merchandise mentioned (key chain, plush toy etc.) is needed.
- I know. Fixed it.
How does The Sponge Who Could Fly fall under the category "other media"? That information belongs somewhere under "Critical response". Also, the paragraph describes the episode as "the musical" twice, which I think is slightly misleading for readers skimming through; use "the episode", "the musical episode" or something similar. And the passage "win the biggest costume contest.".^[60]^[60] includes both two periods and two of the same reference; remove one of each.
- It's the 2009 musical adaptation of "The Sponge Who Could Fly", not the episode. Fixed ref dups.
Why are andPOP, BiteTV, Mashable and Smosh reliable sources? Funny or Die definitely isn't one, as it says ([6]) "Funny Or Die is a comedy video website that combines user-generated content with original, exclusive content." (emphasis added)
- I think BiteTV, Mashable and Smosh are passable. What do you think?
  - BiteTV is good enough and Mashable is just about okay. I'm not sure about the Smosh article; I think it might be just about good enough.
    - Right. Removed andpop and funnyordie.

Lead

I think fictional character is a bit of an excessive link.
- Why?
  - [From WP:OVERLINK:] "the following are not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context..." I suppose it's relevant enough to the context of the article; leave it in if you want.
    - Haha. Yes, you're right. Removed link.
"his lack of common sense ... sometimes makes him a negative influence on ... SpongeBob" — This "negative influence" implication isn't mentioned under "Role on SpongeBob SquarePants"; the closest bit to this is "[he] spends his time ... clowning around with SpongeBob". I think the fact he eggs SpongeBob on, or is a bad influence, or clouds SpongeBob's judgement needs to be mentioned there, too.
"Patrick is unemployed, but on some occasions he can be seen working at the Krusty Krab, a local fast food restaurant, or at its rival, the Chum Bucket, in a variety of positions." — Too much detail for the lead. At most, say Patrick is unemployed and a self-proclaimed expert in the "art of doing nothing"^[1].
"however, he has been involved in several public controversies, including one centered on speculation over his relationship with SpongeBob." — Several? I can see one. Additionally, controversy should not be linked.
- Fixed
Again, the "its" in its 2015 sequel should not be linked.
- Fixed.
A brief summary of the "AquaDauber" nickname or "Fagerbakke has been compared to Patrick's character..." paragraph might be nice.
- I don't think AquaDauber should be mentioned in the lead. As Fagerbakke's resemblance to the character.
  - Okay.

Okay, I'm putting this article on hold for seven days. As it stands, the article has some prose issues, doesn't fully follow MOS:LEAD, contains some irrelevant detail [about SpongeBob] and utilises potentially unreliable sources. I cannot pass the article for GA until these issues are fixed. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bilorv for reviewing this article. Hope it passed. — Mediran [talk] 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly done. Just a couple of minor points and the meme section left to fix. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks again Bilorv. I've fixed the link in the lead and also removed other inadequate sources in the 'In other media' section. Also, any thoughts about the lead? Do you think it's good enough? — Mediran [talk] 02:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the lead is good enough. Everything's been addressed — thanks for responding so quickly. Pass for GA. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bilorv. Thank you so much for promoting this article to GA-class. And for this review! — Mediran [talk] 11:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]