Talk:Fishsticks (South Park)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Hello. I have reviewed the article and it seems it generally meets most of the GA criteria. However I'm a little bit concerned about the article going into too much detail, mostly about the plot summary. My suggestion is to shorten it down a bit. Also the production section is only 3 sentences long. While the GA critera doesn't specifically has a section cannot be 3 sentences, I'd prefer the production section to be longer. I liked the episode by the way. Cheers, —Terrence and Phillip 08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I shortened the plot summary a bit; it's within the recommended synopsis length outlined by WP:MOSTV, but if you think it could be shortened further, let me know. Also, I combined the Production and Cultural References sections, which is something The Leftorium recommended in his review of Eat, Pray, Queef. I think that resolves the issue, but let me know. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 00:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article is ready for GA. I've also made a few changes to the article.
Passed. —Terrence and Phillip 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article is ready for GA. I've also made a few changes to the article.