Talk:Goldie & Bear/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 21:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. I'm pretty new to the process so bare with me!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Overall, well-written, easy to understand and complies with guidelines set out by MOS:Film
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Was a little skeptical about the amazon reference, but when looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Spotlight doesn't look like an issue. Great!
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
"Lawsuit" section is placed at the bottom of the article so does not interfere with WP:Undue. Opinions are carefully attributed to a source. Neutral tone achieved.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Comments: I see that this is certainly not your first GAN article User:Pamzeis. This looks good and deserves a pass! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicave (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, Chilicave! Do you have any suggestions for the article itself? I'd be happy to implement anything you feel could be improved. I will note that your comment on due weight doesn't seem entirely accurate. In general, it doesn't matter where in the article the material is, but how much of the article is devoted to said material. For example, if I made 90% of the article about the lawsuit, that wouldn't be due weight (unless it was an exceptional case) even if it were placed last in the article. If you feel the article satisfies the good article criteria, you can follow the instructions listed at WP:GAI#PASS. Pamzeis (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pamzeis Thanks for being patient with my "newness" to the process!

1. You are absolutely right! I'm fully aware of WP:Undue, but wanted to incorporate something to showcase my efforts in reviewing the article to the best of my ability. Specifically, I was referring to this line "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery."

2. I do have two minor suggestions/questions about the article itself, but since the guideline said "reasonably well-written", I thought that it's not a big deal.

Since you're open to my thoughts though:

Lead

a. Perhaps another word to use in place of "greenlit" to encompass a general audience? Only because I haven't seen a common use of it in the leads of other TV/film articles. If you want to leave it in there, you could add a wiki-link to it instead.
I've linked the term, but I'm iffy on using "approved" or similar since "greenlit" has a more specific meaning that could be misinterpreted if a synonyms were used

b. Inspired by the fairy tale "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", the show focuses on Goldie and Bear, who become best friends following an incident at his house.

This bit seems a little vague. Correct me if I'm wrong but does the TV show re-imagine the aftermath of the series of events that transpire in "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" or is it just an incident?
A bit confused on what you're suggesting here. So, basically, from what I remember from watching the show years ago, Goldie does everything that happens in the fairy tale, then she apologises to Bear, and they become best friends. I've never read "Goldilocks", but doesn't the entire story just consist of this specific incident?

Overall, it looks good to me. Chilicave (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh yes, one more thing.

Per the guideline MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I saw that comedy was mentioned in the info box but not in the article itself. Any particular reason for that? Chilicave (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, there's just not anywhere to put it, really. I've seen the same thing done at FAs like HSMTMTS. Pamzeis (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]