Talk:Finn the Human and Jake the Dog
Finn the Human and Jake the Dog has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 12, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Finn the Human (Adventure Time episode) was copied or moved into Finn the Human / Jake the Dog. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Jake the Dog (Adventure Time episode) was copied or moved into Finn the Human / Jake the Dog. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Finn the Human (Adventure Time episode)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 01:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Gen. Quon (Talk)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
None
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:
The lead does not provide an accessible overview. Major Points like the Plot and the Reception are not the concise summaries of their respective sections.The lead does not give relative emphasis to the Reception as is given in the body.Short paragraphs generally do not warrant their own subheading. Merge Background and Events sections into the Plot.Paragraphs should be long enough to develop an idea. Fix other short paragraphs.No inline citations for the direct quotations: "never even ever existed." and "mutagenic bomb".No end quote "loosely inspired by the Japanese manga series. It should be after inspired as per source 6.
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for performing a very thorough review of this article. How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)