Talk:Plankton and Karen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look over Plankton and Karen. Sagecandor (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 13, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good, likely the product of a Guild of Copyeditors copyedit from recently, 11 May 2017. Lede gives good context and introduction for the reader. Article is well organized and covers the major aspects. Gives in-depth research and analysis of the topic. One can clearly see a tremendous amount of research went into this.

2. Verifiable?: Everything is cited. All factual assertions. Good use of in-line citations. Lede is summary of article itself per WP:LEADCITE.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article gives broad coverage. In-depth research and discussion in each subsection. Topics discussed include Introduction, Plankton, Role in SpongeBob SquarePants, Development, Voice, Reception, Karen, Role in SpongeBob SquarePants, Development, Voice, Reception, In other media. Interesting style here. You almost have two separate articles, with the article section breakdown for each. Somehow, it works !

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in a neutral tone. No concerns here and wording is matter of fact. Guild of Copyeditors copyedit from 11 May 2017 helped with the wording presentation throughout.

5. Stable? No ongoing talk page arguments. Article edit history shows recent vandalism, dealt with. No ongoing edit wars.

6. Images?: 3 images used. 2 fair use. 1 free use. Free use has acceptable license. 1 fair use in infobox is okay. Suggest removing the 2nd fair use, this one File:SpongeBob SquarePants Plankton and Karen Replicas in Taipei.jpg. It could just be mentioned in text. Just a recommendation going forwards.

Great job ! Nice going getting a copyedit first, that helps out a lot. Amazing work on the research effort ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! The Last Wikibender 10:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)