Talk:Petarded/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- 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 say where the episode broadcasted. In the Plot, "doesn't" ---> "does not", per WP:CONTRACTION. In the Production section, "weren't" ---> "were not". Same section, "couldn't" ---> "could not". Is there any info. available to why Cloris Leachman and LeVar Burton guest starred?
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Dates need to be unlinked. In the Cultural references section, "The episode is based in the movie I Am Sam" ---> "The episode is based in the 2001 movie I Am Sam", so that it can provide context for the reader. Same section, why do you have "1985 in music" linked? Same section, italicize "Time for Timer". In the Reception section, "[...] I will say there are some very good episodes in this set, starting with "Petarded," which sees Peter declared mentally retarded. The ways he takes advantage of this status is classic "Family Guy" material, while the musical montage here, involving phone calls all over town, is actually quite funny. Plus, the appearance of the Naked, Greased-Up Deaf Guy gave hope that the creators still had that sense of the bizarre in them", "Petarded" needs to be 'Petarded', no quotations on "Family Guy". Per MOS:QUOTE. Same section, "Kim Voynar of TV Squad gave the episode a mixed review, saying "[...] it just seemed to wrap up a little too quickly for me, like they ran out of time and were like, "Oops, let's wrap this up now". Other than that quibble, though, it was a fairly funny episode", "Oops, let's wrap this up now" ---> 'Oops, let's wrap this up now.'
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
