Jump to content

Talk:Phineas and Ferb/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Start of review

[edit]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out -- Philcha (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.

Coverage

[edit]

Structure

[edit]
  •  Done I'd prefer "Characters", "Plot and humor" and probably "Music" to appear at the top, so that readers who are not already fans will know what the series is about. I'm working by analogy with typical artciles on books and films, which generally start with "Plot" followed by "Characters". In the case of Phineas and Ferb I'm happy for "Characters" to appear first as the series appears to be character-driven (unlike e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), where each season has a main story arc), and I'm happy for "Music" to appear early as it's an integral part of the product rather than something added later for atmosphere. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get to that tomorrow. Where exactly early on do you want them? The Flash {talk} 04:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've been quite specific about my preferences. Of course if you have other ideas I'm willing to listen. --Philcha (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, rearranged to your description further. The Flash {talk} 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I envisaged, but quite good enough - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy it's good. The Flash {talk} 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and humor

[edit]
I don't understand. Why are you calling these primary sources unreliable? Futurama, a good article, links to a chat with Matt Groening, from a fan site. How is this any different at all? The Flash {talk} 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{done} The whole of "To do so, they built outrageous and somewhat impossible inventions ... secret agent for the O.W.C.A ("Organization Without a Cool Acronym")" has only 1 citation:
    • It's another page from the same wiki,and IMO not an acceptable source, see WP:RS.
    • I dont' see how that source supports all the points made in the passage "To do so, they built outrageous and somewhat impossible inventions ... secret agent for the O.W.C.A ("Organization Without a Cool Acronym")". Sorry guys, you need some more and better sources.

--Philcha (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done In " Like fellow cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants, live-action shots are included alongside the animation several times, most recently in the episode "The Chronicles of Meap." Coincidentally, both creators worked on SpongeBob,[14][15] and likely asked for such elements", the only part supported by references is "both creators worked on SpongeBob".
Also, I would just like to restate the links to the wiki e-mails and stuff are 100% reliable as they were e-mails from the creators; you can check the whois for "Swampym." The Flash {talk} 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the reasons already stated. The whois for "Swampym" shows only that, if the protocol header info was not spoofed, "Swampym" wrote from a Web client on Disney's premises. --Philcha (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the point, you're calling a primary source unreliable. How is the person who created the show unreliable? Just because it's from a non-official website does not damper on the clear fact that this is info directly from the co-creators. The Flash {talk} 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment) This has made huge progress since I last looked at it - well done! --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could mention that Doofenshmirtz' schemes are based on vanity rather than the conventional global domination - see Phineas and Ferb: Kid Inventors and a Secret Agent Platypus, it's in line with the "no one is really evil" ethos. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont' think "almost always lead to the eventual destruction of whatever contraption Phineas and Ferb have built that day" is exactly supported by Disney's Phineas and Ferb do it all, which says, "the Doctor's malevolent plots being foiled, which directly contributes to Phineas and Ferb's exoneration from their sister's accusations." Remeber that P&F's project of the day is not always a construction, see sources you've already cited. Can you rephrase or find an additional source. Perhaps some sources you've already cited may help - my comment about Doofenshmirtz' schemes is based on an item from an already-cited source. When you've gone to the trouble to find good sources, milk 'em. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one destroy an activity? The source says "These encounters consistently include the elements of Dr. Doofenshmirtz capturing Perry, as well as the Doctor's malevolent plots being foiled, which directly contributes to Phineas and Ferb's exoneration from their sister's accusations." which is poor writing in the source as it's unclear. Best would be to find another source that's clearer and then paraphrase that. Otherwise you'll have to find some phrasing that's as non-specifc as the current source. --Philcha (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've fixed it. The issue here is that, like you've said, they do more than invent, so it's hard to find a single phrase that grips on what you can call everything they do... The Flash {talk} 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "... and occasional double-entendre" cites one of the episodes. This has 2 flaws: it covers only one episode; and it's your interpretation that some aspect of that episode is a double-entendre. Another source you've already cited may help. If not, Google for "Phineas and Ferb" double-entendre. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Actually, it does - ""The truth is, we make this cartoon for ourselves," said Marsh. "We don’t make it for children; we just don’t exclude them, which is something that John Lassister once said. When you get to writing the jokes and finalizing the content, you just want to make sure you don’t do anything that’s going to make you cringe as a parent or that’s going to alienate the younger viewers." You must have missed it. The Flash {talk} 14:28, 23 July

2009 (UTC)

  • You've asked me this before, and the unfortunate thing is there's no time marker on it or any sort of way to denote which place is which. Ideas?
In this case, drop the podcast as we already have a good text ref for "not created just for kids, but simply did not exclude them as an audience". --Philcha (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't just drop a third party source because it takes a while to listen to it - that'd be a waste of a reliable reference. But in this case, I'll drop it for this specific reference, The Flash {talk} 15:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Aspects of the show's humor are aimed at adults" apparently also relies on that podcast. How far in? --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find alternative text sources? In our discussion of "not created just for kids" it turned out that there was a very strong text source. I think you should milk the text sources before using other types. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not doneThe O.W.C.A. is listed as being "all-animal", however Major Monogram and Carl are both human, as are other, less often seen characters who play the same position as Major Monogram for other agents. As such, the organization is not "all-animal", rather, it has an all-animal field agent cast and (seemingly) all-human office cast. 71.179.97.219 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

[edit]
  •  Not done Re "blended family, a premise the creators considered underused in children's programming and which reflected Marsh's own upbringing" relies on that podcast! how far in? --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [Phineas and Ferb: Music, Mischief, And The Endless Summer Vacation covers this, and is text rather than a podcast - we don't need no stinkin' podcasts :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, fixed. But you seem to really have issues with the podcast, and like I said, it gives no time of mark of percent but gives heavy production detail and can't be dropped for every reference because it's, well, long. The Flash {talk} 16:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't fixed, you haven't added the text ref I found.
        • If you cited a book, you'd be expected to state a page or fairly small page range. You said the podcast is "well, long". The principle's the same - you can't expect reviewers to listen to the whole podcast for one point, then for another, then for another, etc. You need to give some guide on how far in the relevant parts are, so reviewers and readers can go directly to the relevant parts. -Philcha (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll guess I'll have to say this again - there is no other way, why don't you see that? A book you can pinpoint a time because there's a page number, but you can't cite a commentary. I will not drop a reliable source because it takes a while to listen too when the same thing happens with commentaries and I don't see anyone arguing over those. My logic is sound. The Flash {talk} 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Animation director, Rob Hughes, concurred: "in all the other shows every character is either stupid or a jerk, but there are no stupid characters or jerks in this one"" is phrased as a quote from Hughes, but it's Povenmire's comment on Hughes' feelings. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done fine on attribution, but "Povenmire has stated that their animation director, Rob Hughes, concurred with them" is clumsy (sounds like a rather shifty political press statement) - can you make it a bit more like plain English? --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure how I can incorporate how Rob H. said it, as well Povenmire being the one roughly quoted them, without it being a run-on. I think another copyedit is needed and if so, it'll be fixed then. The Flash {talk} 16:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thanks, fixed. The Flash {talk} 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"concurred with them"? This isn't a White House press release. --Philcha (talk)
What? I did exactly what you said. The Flash {talk} 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now is it better? The Flash {talk} 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music

[edit]
  •  Done The source simply says they created one song in 40 minutes, it does not make a generalisation. That's impressive enough, no need to go beyond the source. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Also, you seem to have serious issue with the podcast and I think it's pretty clear there's no way to fix it. This is pretty much just like when a source is a DVD commentary, so I'm unsure how you wish me to prove it and further... The Flash {talk} 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the text ref.
The passage still looks clumsy and a little over-blown to me. How about "Both creators had musical backgrounds, as Povenmire performed rock 'n' roll music in his college years[ref] and Marsh's grandfather was the bandleader Les Brown" (also fixes DAB link)? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll add that. The Flash {talk} 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked the text. But I think you missed the link. --Philcha (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Missed that - fixed :) The Flash {talk} 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review suspended

[edit]
  • If I had to pass judgement right now, the article would fail by a mile on lack of references to good sources - please read and make sure you understand WP:WIAGA, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS.
  • Please work you way right through the article, making sure that every statement, item in a list, etc. is supported by at least 1 reference to a good sources. --Philcha (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need to take WP:V and [[WP:RS] seriously. I'm not going to argue every single refence with you, I'll just fail the article. You must read and comply with WP's policies. I'm not in favour of policies for the sake of policies (in some areas I'm one of the more combative dissidents), but I totally support WP:V and WP:NOR, and my views on what's an acceptable source are very much closer to WP:RS than to your ideas on the subject. --Philcha (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am taking it seriously - you can't call it unreliable when it's from the co-creator of the show. I'm not arguing, I am telling you the facts. I understand where you're coming from, but the point is they are the creators and anything they say about the show is reliable. The Flash {talk} 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't want to argue either. You are telling me that a direct e-mail that even shows the creator's e-mail address is not official, which cannot be true. I know the policy and I have read it - this is without a doubt a primary source, no original research. Your defending a fact that cannot be true because there's no better source then from the creator of the show. Please actually explain why you do not consider this true. The Flash {talk} 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, do you wish me to remove every single instance of it? Also, what other way could it be reliable? The Flash {talk} 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual aspects and animation

[edit]

Prose quality

[edit]
  • Unfortunately the prose is poor. I'll highlight examples as I go, but you really need to get someone who's good at English prose to copyedit this. At present the article does not meet the GA criterion "well-written: the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct". If you attempt to copyedit this article yourself, I recommend that you first work through User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), omitting the MOS-specific parts. --Philcha (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early inspirations

[edit]
  • Re "... one of the many stepfathers he was raised by had given him words of advice ... best advice he's been given throughout his life":
    • Poor phrasing at "had given him words of advice, which told him that" - it can be half as long and twice as good. --Philcha (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How far into that damn podcast? % or minutes, I on't care. You haven't said how long it is, and that's a big turn-off in its own right. You need to listen, pause, make notes about times / positions of relevant items and total time. --Philcha (talk)
      • I'm gonna say this again - there is not time or percent marked. Look, do you have issues with DVD commentaries? You can't pinpoint time in that, can you? Why are you taking, like, heavy issue with this? The Flash {talk} 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conception

[edit]
"after 16 years of trying, Povenmire landed a pitch with Disney" (next section) makes the point. --Philcha (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Oh dear, the inaccuracies start to creep in again. "At college in the mid-nineties Povenmire took up animation professionally,[19] working alongside future Phineas and Ferb co-creator Jeff Marsh as a layout artist on The Simpsons" makes it look like Povenmire moved straight to the Simpsons. P's first published cartoons were in the student mag but apparently he was not paid for them - it was his energetic merchandising that made the money. --Philcha (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you need to describe briefly how P came to work on The Simpsons and meet Marsh. Likewise you need to summarise Marsh's route to their first meeting. --Philcha (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Hey, I think we have our show", the source quotes P as "... told my wife, "This is the show I'm going to sell." I called Swampy that night and said, "Okay, I've got Phineas."" --Philcha (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read it carefully - "All the other characters grew out of [the triangle doodle]." If that doesn't cover it enough, below they state "This guy's a triangle, this one's a rectangle, this girl's half a circle. Then we worked geometric shapes into the background design to tie it all together -- give it a visual/thematic through line. There's a little bit of Tex Avery in there -- he had that very graphic style [in his later cartoons]. A lot of what I see now is borrowed from Tex." Putting it together you can see what they were saying is that the artistic style and actual characters were developed because it was made. The Flash {talk} 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent post appears to imply that you have a solution that does not involve my trawing through the podcast multiple times. --Philcha (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, would you like me to start it? The Flash {talk} 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second pause

[edit]
  • Problems about inaccurate use of sources start showing up again in the "Conception" section, which I've only just reviewed. Please check everything in the rest of the article to make sure that:
    • The result is balanced (see comments about Marsh' role, above)
    • The sources used fully support the corresponding text.
    • No embellishments or interpretations not clearly supported in the sources. --Philcha (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast

[edit]

Since we've disagreed about how a podcast should cited, I requested some second opinions. A few responded at [Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations and one at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources - all in favour of stating how far in the cited content is. If that turns out in this podcast, I suggest you check the existing text-based sources to see if they can provide the necessary support (I saw some while I looking for other things); if any points need additional sources, Google for the appropriate phrases. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duh, duh, duh, duh-d-d-duuuh. :P And I'm done! Now there's a general location located for every statement supported by the podcast! For some reason I'm having serious issues with ref issues with "AM3" because it's not working at all for no reason, but other than that there should be zero issues now. The Flash {talk} 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried using the podcast, and it's totally unusable as a source of verification:

  • The Flash version at A Phineas and Ferb Extravaganza, Special Podcast Included! has no method of navigation to specific points in the conversation.
  • The downloadable mp3 version from the same page provides only very approximate navigation to specific points in the conversation. For example I tried to the reference to support "Furthermore, one of the many stepfathers he was raised by had given him words of advice, which told him that he would only have a good career if enjoyed what he was doing. Marsh cites this as the best advice he's been given throughout his life" but did not hear that despite runign through to the end of the podcast.
  • It's glacially slow, at least 30 times faster than reading text. Speech is slower than reading any way, and there are pauses and laughs and "ums" and "ers" and a lot of material that is irrelevant to the article.

Please find text alternatives that support the points that currently cite the podcast. Some of the text sources already used will help, for example I know one that covers Marsh's computer accessories career (411, IIRC). --Philcha (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll remove a reliable third party source because you think it's too long to be used (don't agree, but after all this time I'm just gonna yield on this one, lol) - it'll take me a while though, so please be patient, thanks! :) The Flash {talk} 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters (2)

[edit]
  •  Done In 2nd para ("The creators sought to distinguish the show by characterizing its cast as fun-loving ... no stupid characters or jerks in this one") the source cited supports none of this. You used to have a good source back in the article's history - looks like something fell off while you were moving the furniture. --Philcha (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm getting really sick with this one - I have no idea why, but it keeps changing. I used <ref name="AM2"/> which is page two of the interview, but for no reason at all it keeps getting screwed up. I hope it's fixed. The Flash {talk} 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now. --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early inspirations(2)

[edit]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

[edit]
That's fine. --Philcha (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and merchandise

[edit]
I've copyedited, is my attempt accurate and clear? --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks good! :) The Flash {talk} 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd prefer a more concise summary of gameplay, but it's now a matter fo taste. Thanks for the rankings. I concsider this one resolved. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence should be reworded: "Some reviewers were displeased that the discs covered selected episodes rather than providing box sets of whole series, but noted that Disney does not generally release full-season DVD sets." Since the show is still in production, they can't release a box set of the whole series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.135.51 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homages

[edit]
  •  Done The first para needs some copyediting - look over all parts of this comment before dealing with them individually - you may need to move senteces around: --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done In "The United Kingdom Disney Channel currently airs a series ...", the word "currently" will be out-of-date as soon as season 2 ends, especialy if there's no season 3. Series that may run for additional seasons will always maintenance. But "currently" creates uncertainty for a reader in e.g. 2012 - is it still running in 2012, or did someone just not update it? Better to present start dates of seasons 1 and 2. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start of 1st season would be nice, but the date of the 2nd & currently latest is an improvement. --Philcha (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those were the only sources I found, nothing mentioned its premiere. The Flash {talk} 15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would have been nice, but not a devastating omission. -Philcha (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. --Philcha (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell, it's not great but intelligible. --Philcha (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In Stetzer, Ed; Stanley, Richie; Hayes, Jason. Lost and Found: How Churches Are Connecting to Young Adults. p. 183.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), you need to provide date, publisher and ISBN. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phineas and Ferb was also mentioned in season 5 of Psych; Shawn mentions that he "took a nap, watched Phineas&Ferb, had a snack, I'm tired", to describe a day without a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.22.35 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Ref #17 (USC dropout makes it big in animation) is a deadlink.
  • Done.
  • Ref #30 (common sense media) moves the link to a different URL; replace.
    • Done.
  • Ref #32 (DVD Review - the fast and the phineas) is a deadlink.
  • Done.
[edit]

Byrial's checker shows the artcile w-links to no disambig pages. It links to 25 WP redirect pages, but I don't think that's problem. --Philcha (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

[edit]
The text says nothing about "downtown", and I'm sure he didn't grow up in the middle of the bay. Even if P grew up in the middle of the bay, which the pic shows, this artcile is about the show rather than about 1 of the 2 creators. --Philcha (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the best image I could find. There are zero (and I mean zero) free-use images of Dan and Swampy on the internet. The Flash {talk} 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary, but what the heck. --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOSIMAGE - images at left should not kick headings sideways. --Philcha (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, done. The Flash {talk} 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The pic on en.wp has a banner "candidate to be moved to Commons", which should mean it's still on en.wp and you should be able to upload a revised version. --Philcha (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is quite confusing... The Flash {talk} 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is this pic doing in this article? As if the image of the Mobile, AL waterfront wasn't bad enough, the inclusion of File:Whitney Matheson.jpg is absurd. That's like a double-whammy of irrelevance*.
*irrelevance = two or more degrees of seperation from the subject of the article -K10wnsta (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Dump both of these pics. --Philcha (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

[edit]
  • You've just added a picture gallery. IMO that was a mistake, and you should dump the pics:
    • It's toon, so pics of the voice artists add nothing.
    • AFAIK Povenmire and Marsh are not members of the cast.
    • "No free image" pics of Povenmire, Marsh and 2 voice actors.
    • Spreading the pics in a table is no good at less much than 1440 window width - e.g. at 800px width a reader has to scroll horizontally to see all the content - a heinous web sin. --Philcha (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree with you. The Simpsons and several other animated series pages use this exact same thing. It is not a picture gallery, either, but a table to list the main cast members. But I will not get into another huge discussion on something you do not like with the page (because we all know where that ends :P) so I'm just going to yield if this will become that. The Flash {talk} 20:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've asked for comments at WT:GAN. --Philcha (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WP:GA? criteria is (6b) images are relevant to the topic. I believe images of show's voice actors are relevant (a gallery of the cast of The Simpsons would be irrelevant). I would err on side of inclusion if the main editor believes it is important enough to include. I don't see which GA criteria regulates the format of images (I think there is an option for 'width=100%' that automatically adjusts to the screen size but the coding for these tables has long since passed me by). --maclean (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep the gallery in - but remove the "no free image" placeholders. --Philcha (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Is this done now? Wizardman 16:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
You've added a little too much - the Emmy for The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein is not in the main rtext, and the lead can't contain material that's not in the main text, see WP:LEAD. Of course if you also added the Emmy for The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein in the "Awards" section that would be fine. --Philcha (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]
Can the review be wrapped up, whether on the reviewer or reviewee's side? Only one comment in September, so looks like progress has stopped. Wizardman 18:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, as well, am extremely annoyed by the length of this review. Most of the references to the podcast are found solely there so it's difficult to do so, plus it's a long process, especially when I'm busy with other things and in personal life. I'll try and get done/almost done with it this week. The Flash {talk} 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished - it took a lot shorter than I thought, as I forgot I removed a lot last month. The Flash {talk} 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 52kb review either means the article is in terrible shape or the reviewer is being way too nitpicky. In either case it should be passed or failed very soon. Wizardman 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wizardman, can we wrap this up?--Giants27(c|s) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of review

[edit]

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this. -Philcha (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The Flash {talk} 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
 If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phineas_and_Ferb/GA1&oldid=1142443862"