Talk:Static Shock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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.	One of my very few reviews where there are quibbles, below, but much less concerns with the writing style. Quite good job here. I checked with the Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox at the top of this GA Review subpage -- and its result was -- "Violation Unlikely 21.3% confidence". This is wonderful! GA Nominator and contributors to the article are to be commended! Thank you!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	For an article of this size, lede intro sect could be much larger. Recommend expansion to four (4) paragraphs of at least four sentences each. Please be more specific and less vague in lede sect "positively received by television critics" which critics? which publications? "Even though the show received criticism for its jokes and animation" what was wrong with the jokes? what did the critics point out about the animation? which critics? Some layout issues: Please retitle sect Influence as just Reception or Critical reception. Then, move Legacy info to its own parent two-level sect. Then, move Accolades to top of sect. Change current Critical reception sect to Reviews. Audience info can be moved into Broadcast and release, as it is all contemporary with the timeline of the release. Accolades sect can then be moved to the top of the new Critical reception or Reception sect. After that's done, the layout will look much, much better.
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.	See below re in-line citations for image captions. Otherwise, great job here.
	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).	Eleven (11) or more, links, have link problems, as shown by Checklinks tool you can find in the GA Toolbox at the top of this page. Please archive those to Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive using WP:CIT citation fields of archiveurl and archivedate. Strongly recommend archiving all other hyperlinks in same manner.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article most certainly relies upon a vast preponderance of secondary sources. No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article does indeed address major aspects of topic, quite well. No issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is large, but also good because it is comprehensive. No issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Very large Critical reception sect, but not enough mention or summary of it, in the lede intro sect, to adequately summarize various points-of-view so as to have an ideally neutral presentation.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Please explain recent problems in article edit history as recent as 16 October 2015. You may want to request semi-protection. Have you tried to post to the users's talk pages that added the info in question, to explain to them what's going on here? Please explain this a bit more. IFF the article is stable after the 7 day period, hopefully that should be okay for the GA Criteria, we'll see.
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.	A few problem images: File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - please add a more detailed fair use rationale, in the form of a numbered point-by-point argumentation for why the image is fair use, and see for example the way I did it myself in the infobox image for the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise - this would go in the sect on the image page Purpose of use. File:Phil.lamarr.2014.jpg - please move this image to Commons, there are helpful tools to assist you with this, at Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, and I personally recommend User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good, though others are good, as well. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - please expand fair use argumentation in Purpose of use sect on this image page, another model you can look at is the way I did it for the infobox image at article, The Land of Gorch.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some images have in-line citations for captions, while others do not. As you already do this, please make sure all images have in-line citations for info asserted in captions, except for infobox image which is okay.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review it, Cirt!

"For an article of this size, lede intro sect could be much larger." — Well, it has 4,584 words, according to the search engine; it is in compliance with WP:LEADLENGTH.

"Please be more specific and less vague in lede sect [about reception]" — Well, lead is the place to be generic; in the body there are the details.

"Layout issues" — I'm not sure they were really "issues" but I nevertheless followed your suggestion.

"Checklinks tool" — this tool is helpful but sometimes it is not that reliable. I've checked one by one my sources, and they are all I fine. Nevertheless, I archived the refs as you recommmended (in fact, I usually archive the sources of my GAs but I'm a bit lazy sometimes).

"Please explain recent problems in article edit history as recent as 16 October 2015." — Hm, I take it as an isolated case. I removed the section on June 29. There were edits from at least six different editors since then and none of them disagreed with it. And completely random user re-added it on September 14. I was absent from Wikipedia so I didn't notice it until you accepted to review the article. Today, I've left a note on the article talkpage. I hope it clarifies the situation. As an isolated case, I guess semi-protection is not necessary.

"File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - please add a more detailed fair use rationale" — Done.

"File:Phil.lamarr.2014.jpg - please move this image to Commons" — Done. However, when I moved it to Commons I found out there were others image of LaMarr so I changed the image because it's better (at least in my opinion) a image in which the person is turned to right and another that the person is turned to the left. The new one is also more contemporary to the show airing.

"File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - please expand fair use argumentation" — I was hoping for a second opinion, and you can give it if you comfortable doing so. It was already on the article and just preferred to keep it so to not cause any potential problem because someone would say "wow, but it's here for a long time" (like what happened with "Gear's Gadgets" section). I thought it could be serviceable but I was not 100% percent sure about it. What's your opinion on it?

"Some images have in-line citations for captions, while others do not." — Just in case, I've added sources. However, the second double image was the only to had source since the caption contained new information that was not in the body, while others do not. Anyway, I guess it's preferrable to keep a consistency.

PS: As for your suggestion, I'm not that confident on reviewing as English is not my first language. Nevertheless, I sporadically try do it; however, I see I'm far from achieving the proportion of 3/1 (3 reviews per each 1 nominated) and I'm more like 1/2... I'll see what I can do from now on. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Respectfully disagree, WP:LEAD should be expanded to better reflect the article's body context, at least 3 total paragraphs of 4 sentences each.
2. WP:NPOV would be much improved, as well, if the lede intro sect represented both some positive and negative critical commentary from a couple highlighted and attributed sources.
3. Respectfully disagree, vague wording is poor writing, examples -- "positively received by television critics" which critics? which publications? "Even though the show received criticism for its jokes and animation" what was wrong with the jokes? what did the critics point out about the animation?
4. Layout issues - article looks much better, excellent job, thank you!
5. Checklinks tool -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Static_Shock - shows only one problem at -- Static Shock on The WB (info) [thewb.com] --- great job, but can you address this one?
6. Article edit history -- explanation acceptable, thank you!
7. File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - excellent job, thank you!
8. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - needs better fair use rationale here, just model after your successful job, above, please.
9. Thank you for adding the image to Commons, glad you were able to find a better one, good for you!
10. Thank you for increasing consistency and standardization of the image citations, much appreciated!
11. That one was just a suggestion, and optional only. So long as you've at least taken some time to read and familiarize yourself with the instructions, and then consider the possibility to pay it forward, that is great and that's much appreciated!

Not too much left holding this one up. Address above, and I'll revisit, and then we should be all set to promote, after that, hopefully. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Hm, I don't know; WP:LEADLENGTH is a guideline and it says it would be excessive.
2. Hm, I guess it would be POV to select a random review and highlight it.
3. Well, now I've tried to be more specific about the criticism on jokes and animation. And "which critics"? Most of them. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is a problem but looking at other FAs this seem to be the standard. Considering only the ones with "TV series" (just because of the search engine), Firefly only mention sales and awards; Horrible Histories has a summary "The series was a critical and ratings success ... "; House has audience, distribution and awards; Kampung Boy is the more detailed so far but nevertheless do not mention specific critics by name; Making Waves is probably an exception because it has only 3 episodes; and Thunderbirds article also only give generic information: "the Andersons' most popular and commercially successful series", with effects and music praised.
4. Ok.
5. It's an external link to the former official site. Should I remove it?
6. Ok.
7. I'll assume you think it's a good image. I'm not sure I was able to do a good for this one because there's less reasons to have it and it's disseminated on Internet.
8. Ok.
9. Ok.
10. Ok.
11. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Strongly disagree about lead length. If that is how you feel that is one of the only sticking points towards the end of what so far was a polite and productive GA Review -- but I could fail this GA for failing WP:LEAD and not functioning as an adequate standalone summary of the entire article's contents, I'm sorry.
2. It would absolutely not be POV to select a few key reviewers and publications and mention a few in the lede intro sect.
3. Half a clause of one sentence is not really enough summary of Legacy sect.
4. Yes, if a link is not functioning properly than you should not remove it but archive it using a citation template and archiveurl and archivedate.
5. WP:LEAD, at the very top, says " it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Three or four paragraphs of four sentences each would be appropriate here.
6. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - not much improvement here. Why is this necessary in this article? How is it discussed in the article? Why is a picture better than words to represent this image? Why can't an alternative be found? Be more specific and add more bullet points numbered with additional argumentation, please. Thank you!

A few holdups. Unfortunately, GA Nominator resistance indicates review is trending closer to being failed than being passed. I will revisit one more time before failing the article. — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gabriel Yuji, that was a bit harsh tone of me. I went for a nice 3 mile run and feel a bit more perspective after thinking about this a bit more. Of course you can have a few more attempts to tweak and improve the article during the Seven Day period of GA on Hold. Once again, my apologies for the tone, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the tone, Cirt. I didn't feel offended and it's up to you close it or not.

Now, about your points: I consider the validity of your opinion, but if there is a disagreement, shouldn't we ask for a third opinion? Again, I don't know how I violate WP:LEAD if a part of it (WP:LEADLENGHT) says a short article like this one doesn't need a long lead. Moreover, we have precedents in other TV-related FAs that indicate it is not necessary to be so specific to the point of mentioning a reviewer or a site by name. And of course it would be POV to select a reviewer to mention on the lead because, well, based on what criteria it would be a "key" one? It would be a random and biased choice. Other than that, I think I'm done: archived the external link and improved FUR. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gabriel Yuji, once again, my apologies about that, I'm sorry. I think we're really close on the remaining issues and it's okay to have a minor disagreement about a point or two, especially after your responsiveness to other points, above. — Cirt (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

We're close enough on a few minor disagreements that it's no big deal. :)

Passed as GA.

Thanks very much to GA Nominator for the polite and professional demeanor throughout, and for such responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)