Talk:Stakes (miniseries)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello there! This is second on my "to review" list currently. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Should there be an infobox here?

  I went ahead and added one.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would link to miniseries in the first sentence.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would call her Princess Bubblegum and link to that page as that name would be more familiar to most readers.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Sugar's song, however..." This makes it sound like the reviews of the series in general were negative, which does not seem to be the case from the previous clause of that sentence.

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that I usually don't see a plot summary for the entire season have its own section—I feel like it's usually under the banner of "Episodes" before the actual episode list. But it's up to you.

  That's true, but since this is done in the Adventure Time (season 7), and this is about the entire miniseries, I felt it was appropriate to just have one big ol' plot summary at the top.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "the miniseries could trace its origin back to ideas that..." I would replace that with "the miniseries originated with ideas that..."

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• In the paragraph beginning "the miniseries' story", I would sprinkle those refs throughout the paragraph for easier access.

  I added a few more to make it clearer what is sourcing what.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• In the next paragraph, there's an unnecessary quotation mark before "Stays"?

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I personally wouldn't use so many social media sources myself, but given what they are, I think they're fine...

  Fair point, although all the accounts are verified/legit, and some (like the "King of Ooo" Tumblr) are official and Cartoon Network-sponsored.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I might reduce the size of the images in the "Cast" section. They take up close to half the screen and would work just as well at a smaller resolution.

  I shrunk 'em down a bit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "vocal talents" a little non-neutral

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "lending their roles to various character." Apart from the lack of a plural ending for the last word, role and character are synonyms, so I would replace role with "voice."

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I usually put a critical consensus at the top of the "Critical reception" section.

  I just copied the bit from the intro.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Why are TechnoBubble and Popzara reliable sources/significant viewpoints?

  I went ahead and removed Popzara, but I don't see anything really wrong with TechnoBuffalo. It's just an online review site with a staff of writers.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• You use the verb to applaud three times at the beginning of the discussion of three consecutive reviews.

  Tweaked a bit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• For the DVD release, why do you show Regions 1 and 4 and not any of the others?

  Those are the two regions that most commonly release the show on DVD, but nothing has been released yet.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 15 is dead.

  I checked it, and it seemed to work.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's ref 18 now, but it you apparently archived it.

@Gen. Quon: That's all I have! Sorry for the delay. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 01:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna:, how's that? Thanks for the review.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: Wonderful. Pass! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: