Talk:Adventure Time season 3/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Adventure Time (season 3)/GA1)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by FunkMonk in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi, I'll review this one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "an implied past relationship between Marceline and Princess Bubblegum." It needs to be specified the relationship is lesbian in the intro. Relationship alone is ambiguous.
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "a dog with magical powers to change shape and grow and shrink at will" I see this formulation has been accepted in former reviews, but I think it sounds odd. It seems "the" should e added before "magical powers", or be followed by "that enable him to".
    Fixed. You're right, it did seem funny.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I see it has also been previously accepted, but why does the whole cast of writers have to be mentioned in the intro?
    I just added them in there to summarize the production section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • As an animator myself, and because this is after all an animated show, I find it puzzling that the production section hardly even touches on this aspect. But I guess it is animated in Korea or some such?
    I'll add a little blurb. It's mostly explained in the parent article, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Apart from these issues, which aren't exactly grave, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I think it all looks good now, so I'll pass. The only minor quibble left is that a footnote says Finn is 13, because he became so in a previous episode. That has no source, and though it might seem obvious, it should have one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: