Talk:Phineas and Ferb/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

This article was given GA status in 2009, and has since been abandoned by its top contributors. I'll re-review the article, since I believe it doesn't meet the GA criteria anymore. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is sometimes not grammatically correct. Some examples just from the lead: "The series is also known for its musical numbers, which have appeared in almost every episode since the first-season "Flop Starz"." -- It should be 'first-season's' not 'season'. "Phineas and Ferb is currently on its third season.[8]" -- Should say 'in its third season'. "On August 25, 2011, the show was picked up for a fourth season on Disney Channel, a possible spin-off and feature film for the series.[9]" -- I think it's safe to assume that it's on Disney Channel, and that shouldn't be written. There are also a few dablinks. The prose could use some polishing, but that is not the article's primary problem.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This doesn't seem to be a significant problem, although I see two uses of 'currently' and a contraction, and that giant table of worldwide airings is questionable. I also don't think "Potential" needs to be its own subsection (It's one sentence.)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This is the largest problem. When I got to the article, there were 42 citation needed tags, and I have added more, as well as a handful of dead links. At a glance, I also see two bare URLs used in the reflist.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Harmonious with the above comment, many "facts" and statements are left unsourced, due to the lack of citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are two "not in citation given" tags, constituting OR. In addition, all the unsourced statements also count as OR.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I am not too familiar with the show, but I do not feel that the article is leaving anything out.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The international release table, in addition to being largely unsourced, seems to be unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I have not noticed anything that is not neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is a bit of vandalism, but nothing major.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are two non-free images, and I believe the character photo is necessary, but I don't know about the logo.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images appear to be relevant, and the captions are appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am delisting this article, largely due to lack of citations/original research. The prose, MOS, and image concerns should be addressed too. Once citations are added, dead links are replaced, and MOS/Prose/Image issues are resolved, I recommend renominating. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, the international release thing has been taken off, so there is far less OR to go by (2 and 3), and most shows have logos, so 6a is likey not much to worry about. 75.111.46.7 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some copyediting, I think you should be able to nominate this successfully. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]