Talk:Gump Roast/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a show that completely lost me ten or more years ago. Still, let's get to it then.

That's too bad, the thirteenth season is usually considered a turn to form for the series.Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Writing seems lax and a little specialised - you need to give surnames for characters like "Homer" (I know it's Homer Simpson, but encyclopaedic articles should be written with the assumption of an ignorant audience). Rule of thumb would be to give a full name when you blue-link a character - so the first time in the article, plus maybe once more if the first time was in the lead. Also, I'd explain "trilogy episode". Is it one episode split into three parts (which I assume it is), or a three-part episode? I'd suggest re-doing the "Plot" section as well - the brackets are needless and phrases like "à la Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump" could be worded better. Also, in the infobox, "Alec Baldwin Himself" should be "as Himself".

   I made some changes, have a look! Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS seems grand to me. Would perhaps move the table out of the Plot section though - you could afford to give it a new section, I think.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Your referencing is fine.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Your sources seem grand.

   C. No original research:

   There's no OR in the article, everything is supported and accurate.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers all the expected bases, nothing missing or lacking.

   B. Focused:

   Keeps a tight focus on the subject without drifting off.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article history is stable and uncontroversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The sole image used is perfectly fine, its creative commons license checks out grand.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I'd like to see an image of the episode itself as the lead image, currently the only image is of one of the voice cast - and that image is quite awkwardly situated at the nexus of two two tables, making it look like an afterthought. I'd suggest moving it elsewhere on the page, though if the clip summary table is moved to its own section as suggested this may not be an issue.

   Added an image from the episode.Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm going to place this nomination on hold considering the comments made above. I'd consider both the points to be contributing to this, and if either the lack of a good lead image or the article's prose style is fixed, I would consider that enough to pass it. Both would be preferable, however; but I'd rather not pass the article without at least one being addressed.|I'm going to place this nomination on hold considering the comments made above. I'd consider both the points to be contributing to this, and if either the lack of a good lead image or the article's prose style is fixed, I would consider that enough to pass it. Both would be preferable, however; but I'd rather not pass the article without at least one being addressed.

   I'm satisfied with the changes, and have passed the article.|}}

   Thanks!Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)