Talk:Crossover (Adventure Time)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 12:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have made some tweaks throughout to remove extraneous words, especially from the plot summary.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference list is correctly formatted as are the references themselves.
	2b. 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).	* Ref 7 doesn't support any of the preceding sentence. Addressed. Ref 10 taken on good faith since it requires a subscription.
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~Aside from the issue with ref 7, no issues with potential OR.~~ Addressed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All quotes are identified with author and source, and appropriately cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes. Covers the plot, production, and reception in reasonable detail.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Recap of previous episodes is pertinent and concise, so I don't think it verges into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image of main storyboarder is relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.

Gen. Quon, just a courtesy ping to address the situation with ref 7. Otherwise the article is basically a solid pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos Thanks for the ping. The subscription access is sorta weird. I basically treated it like a journal article paywall? As for reference number 7, I invoked it to show that "The Mountain" was storyboarded by both Moynihan and Alden. If you think I should use a better, non-self-published source, I can probably find one.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that it was self-published, more that it didn't support this specific statement: (during that year, Alden had been temporarily hired to storyboard "The Mountain" with Moynihan). Unfortunately the new source doesn't support that statement either, unless I'm missing something in either one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos How is this edit? I just kind of side-stepped the issue (I couldn't find a good source)!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, solid yes from me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos Thanks for the review!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]