Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants/1

To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this meets the GA criteria. The 2013 review was very brief and shallow, and I think there are significant issues here. Zap2it.com, DVD Talk, TVShowsOnDVD.com, blogcritic, KidzWorld, and the Facebook ref all look a bit dubious as sources. A few claims in the article (plot summary actually doesn't need inline citations, as it's presumed to be sourced to the episode itself), such as the statement that it was the 116th article, need cited. A lot of the refs are dead. The plot summary is disproportionatly wrong. There is are outstanding tags. I'm just not seeing how this is a GA under modern standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the three reviewers in Reception are reliable then I think everything is fixable, and I don't know enough to say whether they are. Deadrefs are solvable, 116 shouldn't have a {{citation needed}} tag because it's routine calculation, it's not clear at a glance that either of the "multiple issues" tags are actionable. I believe Zap2it is reliable and many of the dubious sources are just there to support simple factual claims about DVD releases where primary sources can be acceptably cited instead. I'm not sure what makes the plot summary "disproportionately wrong"—could you expand? But overall, I'd say the test of this is whether it's notable; to that end, I'd recommend nominating it for deletion instead. It's either non-notable or can be made as comprehensive as is possible without inordinately much further work. I notice that most of the SpongeBob episode articles will likely suffer with the same problems so perhaps a wider discussion or bulk AfD would be appropriate at some point. — Bilorv (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm-- any update? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eddie891 and Hog Farm: a relevant development is talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Spongebob episode articles, which could use more attention. — Bilorv (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Eddie891 and Bilorv: - "disproportionally wrong" was a typo for "disproportionally long". I'm not convinced that a plot summary that appears to me to be longer than the rest of the article body combined is really appropriate for a GA (if it does turn out to be a problem, its fixable). I'm also not familiar enough with the sources to make a definitive call on reliability, although based on [1] I'd say the earliest blogcritics stuff is probably non-RS, but without a working link to the specific article in question, it's hard to judge the merits of that single article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hog Farm: your thoughts would be appreciated at the WPTV discussion I linked above, because presumably these issues raised will apply to all GA Spongebob episode articles, at the least. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting, because this isn't a GA-quality article, but really I support deletion and a wider treatment of the issue. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting per nom. Too bad, too early for a GA, with unreliable sources and many issues. Chompy Ace 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting per the terrible sourcing alone, and perhaps to establish a precedent for other articles like it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]