Talk:Road to the Multiverse/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nyxaus (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article failed - Nyx aus 11:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No further improvements have been made and many parts of the GAR have not been completed. The article does not meet GA standards.

Final Review[edit]

N.B. In this report, SC stands for Specific Comments.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The writing style for the majority of The Plot is too colloquial and needs to be made more encyclopedic. For more help on this please see SC 1A. Major referencing and categorical errors, please see SC 2A.
The prose of the reception section also needs to be completely reworked. Ω phois 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The lead is too short, you could try adding a short (3 or 4 line) synopsis of the episode. See WP:LEAD for more help.
The production section is extremely short, and covers the "Road to" series rather than this specific episode. From your notice on this page, it appears to me that you are under the false GA assumption of passing because "It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards." Per GA requirements, "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Just because no information is available does not mean that the article should be passed. In fact, it shows a possible lack of notability, and should only be nominated once the information becomes available. Ω phois 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. I fully understand and validate what you are saying, however the criteria also reads "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, ... " The fact you quote also suggests " ... and it will never meet the standards ... " which I think is untrue in this case however you do raise a valid point which I will take into consideration in the final review. -- Nyxaus (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your comment on my talk page... The production should have interesting things about the production. Where did the episode's idea originate? What went into the writing process? Were there interesting things that happened while making it? A list of cast members is generally pointless, as guest stars are listed in the infobox. If they are included, then info should be given about why they were cast. As for other articles, you are correct that there are some with similar production sections, and they probably should not have passed in the first place. This article's section has little to nothing that actually relates to the episode itself. I'm not saying that it will never be good enough for GA. I'm saying that it shouldn't be GA until it is up to the standards of GA, which won't be until more information is released. Ω phois 19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
The article is focused however I do think the Plot section is going into a little too much detail, such as individual jokes. You may want to clean the Plot section up.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article does not currently meet GA standards.

Specific Comments[edit]

SC 1A - The article is too colloquial. It needs to be made more formal. Some examples can be been below.
"...the first one that they went to..." instead use "...the first universe visited..."
"...results in them destroying the remote..." instead use "...results in the destruction of the remote..."
It may help to think about how you would write this for a educational report or for a newspaper.

SC 2A - Reference 2 has missing capitalisation. The formatting of Reference 8 is incorrect, please the correct the apostrophes. Also, please add categories to the article, such as [[Category:2009 television episodes]] and [[Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 8]] at the very least. Also, it is customary to add the television programs sequence at the bottom of the page, may I suggest using this template as that seems to be used on other episode pages.

Checklist[edit]

Not done Improve article prose
- Try to work on the continuous prose, the article should flow effortlessly from point to point. Nyx aus 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Correct referencing and catagorical sections
Done Check MoS to ensure high quality layout
- MoS good Nyx aus 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Check grammar and punctuation (including spacing and capitalization)
- A couple of grammatical errors: science fiction shouldn't been hyphenated and "...access different parallel universes; each depicting Quahog in the..." does not require a semi-colon. Nyx aus 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Insure all reference are applicable and no further citation is possible and article is complete

I am looking for them--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have finished. Nyx aus 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Extend and improve lead (WP:LEAD)
Not done second opinion Insure unnecessary information has been deleted
Done Images are correct and relevant with full Free Use rationals, and the best possible images are used

Well i did not find a replacemeent but thats okay.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Extend Production section with relevant information regarding this individual episode