Talk:Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, you might want to remove "popular", since it is a peacock term, per here. Same section, "who's" ---> "whose". Same section and Reception section, it would be best to avoid "...mixed to positive reviews", so just say "The episode received mixed reviews, with IGN commenting that "While not as strong as the pilot, the episode had some notable moments." In the Plot summary, "Dr. Connors" (Dee Bradley Baker). Why isn't set up for the other characters? You need to have a consistency. Same section, "...Max Dillon (Crispin Freeman) works on upgrading the electrical filters until he falls into the tank and is sent to the hospital, quarantined because his is giving off strong electric fields", is "his" supposed to be "he"? If not, you might want to re-write the sentence. Same section, "Peter, meanwhile, gets assigned to study a popular girl named Liz Allan (Alanna Ubach)", Peter studies with or on? Also, add a period after (Alanna Ubach). Same section, "When he attempts to tutor her at a cafe", the beginning of the sentence seems kind of off. A re-write should suffice. Same section, "He leaves and Peter, thinking he is dangerous", "thinking" ---> "believing". Same section, "he attacks", who does Max attack? Spider-Man? Civilians? You need to make that clear. Same section, "...Peter confronts Liz to tell he's terrible at tutoring her" ---> "...Peter apologizes [you can replace with another word] to Liz, explaining he is terrible at tutoring", something like that. In the Production section, maybe adding "Voice actor" in front of Crispin Freeman, just a suggestion. In the Reception section, "...Peter was trying to talk to Aunt May on the phone at the same time as he's fighting Electro" ---> "...Peter was trying to talk to Aunt May on the phone at the same time as he is fighting Electro".

   Everything fixed! The Flash ^{talk} 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, link "Spider-Man" once. In the Plot summary, link "radio tower" to its correspondence article. Why are 2008 and 2009 linked?

   All done - 2008 and 2009 actually link to 2008 in television and 2009 in television, which I've seen done before. The Flash ^{talk} 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   In the lead, the IGN comment should have the source after the quote has concluded, per here.

   Done!

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Are Mania.com and Gargoyles: A Station Eight Fan Web Site reliable sources?

   Just to add (BTW, thanks Peregrine Fisher for explaining these while I was away) the Gargoyles website was actually confirmed by Weisman to actually be really him answering questions here. The Flash ^{talk} 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg needs a lower resolution.

   Done. The Flash ^{talk} 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed everything - thanks for reviewing! The Flash ^{talk} 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome for the review. After looking over the article, I would like to thank SuperFlash for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! The Flash ^{talk} 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not the editor taking this to GA. In any case, I think the two websites mentioned above are reliable in this case. Mania.com is frequently referenced by other RSs.[1] The other is an interview, and based on the large number of interviews that site conducts with cartoon people, I'd say it's reliable for the words of the interviewee. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

I am afraid the quality of sources in this article does not match the standards of featured articles promoted today. If Magazine, Mania, a fan website/forum, Ultimate Disney (which is now DVD Dizzy) do not inspire confidence, and the Slice of SciFi and Comic Book Resources references are actually press releases (but not noted as such). Heartfox (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Do you still have concerns about this article's adherence to the FA criteria? If so, would you be interested in addressing the concerns or bringing this to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at this, I agree with Heartfox's comments above. I will nominate this to FAR in a few weeks unless anyone is interested in fixing this up. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)