Talk:Weevils Wobble But They Don't Go Down/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review as a way to repay the nominator for choosing one of my pages to review. I will have my comments up by the end of the week at the latest. This is my first time reviewing an article, but I will try my best to upload my comments as soon as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It has been previously discussed on the article's talk page, but the following line from the lead (" Meanwhile, Veronica and Piz (Chris Lowell) come to terms with Veronica's FBI internship, and after a sex tape of them is released on the internet, Logan (Jason Dohring) beats up Piz, thinking that he posted it.") is still ambiguous. It sounds more like Logan and Piz are fighting because of a sex tape of them was released. I suggest breaking this sentence up into two to clear up the meaning.

Done Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I recommend for the sentence ("In addition, Keith (Enrico Colantoni) and Vinnie (Ken Marino) debate on Piz's radio show.") that you add they are debating about the election for sheriff as the election or reason for the debate may not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the show. The election is briefly brought up in the Synopsis section, but it is very vague what it is referring to.

Done Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When first introducing a character, you should list their full name and link to their character pages to help readers unfamiliar with the show.

That's a good idea, and I fixed it where applicable. However, some of the pages on the series regular characters have been redirected (I haven't worked on any of them--maybe I will in the future), so I thought it wouldn't make sense just to do a redirect to the List of Veronica Mars characters page. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the infobox, I would recommend including the running time. It is not required to an episode (it seems like some pages have it and others don't), but I wanted to draw your attention to that.

I usually don't add it, but I did for this one. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the Production section, I am a little confused on what the sentence ("Supervising producer Dan Etheridge is friends with Bloom, and they went to the same college.") adds to the information. The placement seems to imply that it has something to do with the fight sequence, but I am not fully seeing a connection. You could move the sentence up to when you first introduce Bloom in this section, but what does knowledge about their friendship add to the information on the episode's production? (I could be missing something very obvious.)

Removed because I agree with you that it is not really relevant. It was just something I found while going through the DVD commentary portion on the episode, and I sort of added it on autopilot. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference in the Rating subsection is broken/dead. It can easily be fixed by finding the necessary page through a web archive in the same way as the first reference from that subsection.

Done Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of archiving, I would highly encourage you to archive all your references just in case (as exemplified in the previous comment).

Done Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Great job! As someone that was a fan of the show (I only watched the first season and random episodes from the second and third), I am really impressed with all the work being put into the episodes on here. The only two "major" things for are some unclear moments in the lead, introducing all the characters by their full names, and fixing the dead link. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments! Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for review! I believe that I have fixed all your concerns, but let me know if there is anything else I can do. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Awesome! The article looks great; thank you for your quick responses to my comments and I think the changes made to the lead and linking the characters has improved it a lot. ✓ Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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: