Talk:MyPods and Boomsticks/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead perhaps too long for article. However, it has lots of single-sentence paragraphs that could be incorporated together

Done

• Info cited later in article body doesn't need refs in lead

Done

• "Steve Mobbs" probably shouldn't be linked to Steve Jobs (same with "Think Differently")

Done

• Latter two paragraphs of Cultural references section (and to a lesser extent, the first one as well) are just simple statements; could be connected better

They seem better as two separate, but I added lead sentences

• "was perplexed why all names relating to Apple were slightly changed but not references to other brands" is poorly expressed, consider something like "was perplexed why all names relating to the Apple company were slightly changed, but references to other brands were not"

Done

• There is definitely something missing in "Daniel Aughey of TV Guide also praised the episode for its jokes but lack of flow, calling it "one step behind"."

Done

• Television critics section is basically a list with little/no context and no integration. Needs improvement.
• "Reception of theme" as a subsection header is non-indicative; I suggest using a better one?
• Pretty sure Mark I. Pinsky didn't ask in 2000 why a 2008 episode was the first to have Islam featured, he was probably asking why there weren't any at that point - needs some rewriting to not trip up like this.

Done

• Second paragraph of Reception of theme subsection... doesn't really make sense? If I was asked what it is about, I would have to go with repeating the quote, which isn't good. How does the article relate, what were the specific controversies, why did the episode come up, etc., etc. - detail and stronger writing style.
• "Religion author" is probably not the best way to describe his job, how about "David Feltmate, writer on religious topics,"

Done

• This section also not integrated well, but a list of different statements with no attempt to make it read well
• Needs work

Coverage

• Lead covers main points of episode and the article
• Plot fine
• Some issues connected to style (where, e.g. in Reception of theme, improved coverage will hopefully improve comprehension and style)
• Pass

Illustration

• Good use of images, especially having one of Jobs and a product, and choosing to include the actress Aghdashloo because of winning an award for the episode
• Pass

Neutrality

• Seems fine
• Pass

Verifiability

• Some very good sources, mixed in with TV Tango, which I shall assume isn't tabloid fodder after a quick search.
• Pass

Stability

• Looks good
• Pass

Copyright

• Check looks good
• Pass

Overall

• on hold Style issues Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Now pass Kingsif (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AA

@Kingsif: Thank you for taking this on. AmericanAir88^(talk) 12:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• @AmericanAir88: Thanks for the edits, AA - the Reception section could still do with a bit of a rewrite, can I leave that to you or would you like some specific comments, because I can go through and make suggestions :) Kingsif (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: Honestly, it would be better for specific comments to ensure I am meeting your criteria. Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @AmericanAir88: Cool! Alright, so, the TV critics is going through by review - this can be good if each review goes into a lot of points and makes a solid paragraph by itself, but when that isn't the case I find it reads like a list of reviewer+general opinion+1 quote. This can be improved by identifying what the main coverage is through all reviews - split either by theme or positive/negative - and break it up this way, with a little introduction for each of them. So you can say 'Critics thought the episode as a whole was funny' + overall ratings and comment on being done earlier, then that they also looks at the two different storylines in it thematically, saying X about the Islamophobia and Y about Mapple. The EW fact can remain as a separate paragraph, but could be introduced better - like 'In addition, the episode made it to the best quotes...'. I also think the very last two paragraphs in Reception of theme can be combined, but the rest of that looks alright now. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kingsif: I'll get to it eventually. I have work currently right now to do. Thank you for this. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @AmericanAir88: Of course, no worries :) Kingsif (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Sorry, i'm still very busy. I estimate that I will finish this around tonight or tomorrow. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: That's ok, take your time Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Done. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Made one edit, which should be clear; otherwise, it's good! Kingsif (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)