Talk:Stephen Hillenburg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

A long, well-cited article, will take me some time to complete the review. Please be patient.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Regarding a: Here are the issues I see with the prose/grammar. Lead: 2015 sequel - need to be clear it's a sequel to the film. Drop the "the" in front of Heal the Bay. Early life, education and career: August 21, 1961 - needs a comma after 1961 (per MOS:DATEFORMAT). I'd get rid of his little brother becoming a draftsman, does not seem to have any relevance to Hillenburg, and therefore is simple trivia. Third paragraph: he held various jobs — when? Not necessarily specific years, but like "after graduating college". Last paragraph, I'd get rid of "pursue his dream", just say he became an animator, and was it really a return to the arts? He never worked in the arts before. Rocko's Modern Life - the line "saw The Intertidal zone is awkward, "saw" should be changed to "read" or something like that. You don't "see" a comic book (I mean, you do, but that's not how you experience it, know what I mean?). Also, the Kenny quote at the end is awkward there. Seems misplaced. Not sure how to fix it, other than to simply delete it. SpongeBob SquarePants - There seems to be an extra period after the ! in Spongeboy Ahoy! In the 3rd paragraph, there's an awkwardness in two back to back sentences which deal with 2.2 million. In the first, it talks about an overall audience of 2.2 million, of which 40% are adults, and in the second it talks about 2.2 million children. It's a tad confusing. And then at the end of the paragraph it talks about 40% of the audience being adult again, which is redundant. In the 4th paragraph, I think the released in 2004 should be a simple clause, rather than a parenthetical expression. The sentence about Tibbet voicing the character needs to be re-worked, it's a bit awkward. At the end of the 5th paragraph, a "the" is needed before the name of the foundation. The final sentence of the section is unclear. Never knew he left SpongeBob... does it mean to the series? Other pursuits - second sentence - do they no longer fund the Humboldt lab? 3rd sentence, should read "based on the cartoon", as it is now is a bit redundant. 3rd sentence - first time he authored his own book? What about The Intertidal Zone? Final sentence of the first paragraph - met with... ...to contribute - doesn't flow right. They met with the writers and asked them to contribute, to get them to contribute? 2nd paragraph: animated and painted are in the wrong tense, he's still working on it... or else the rest of the paragraph is in the wrong tense. Also, drop the "by" before "himself". Also not sure why "people walking" is in quotes. The last two sentences, and how they incorporate the quotes, are rather awkward and need reworking. Personal life - To me this is the weakest section. It starts off with two very short sections, followed by an awkwardly constructed sentence. The seascape sentence is also awkward ("something happened" - "something personal"); also not sure the trivia about his fandom is appropriate in a "good quality" article. The last paragraph in this section is also awkward, it uses Hillenburg way too often. Don't say previous work, tell us what previous work. Lawsuit - first sentence, ending is awkward: stole his ideas from his 1991... perhaps it could read: "stole the idea for SpongeBob from Walker's 1991 comic strip, ..." (but if you do that, you should drop the SpongeBob reference in the next sentence). 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, get rid of the had before demanded, then get rid of the and after the , and simply say alleging. That sentence should be combined with the next short sentence, starting with "and saying they...". Awards - end of first paragraph needs to be reworked, "winning six times, as well as winning two BAFTA Children's Awards, out of four nominations. Regarding b: The lead does not mirror the article - no discussion of his personal life and lawsuit. Some of the details regarding his family could be excised from the lead, as they probably don't belong there, but absolutely keep in the body of the article. The layout is fine. In Lists, the filmography is well formatted, but do we know the year of Hollywood Blvd., USA? That should be in there. imdb has it listed as 2014, if there is no better source, use that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Contains a reference section (although #55 is bolded and italicized for some reason), with no original research and no copyright violations. However, there's an unreliable reference in the lawsuit section which needs to be addressed. There's also #54, which is a twitter post, would like to see a better source that he's given writer credit.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Contains sections on the different major aspects of his life, and is focused within those categories.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   While there has been healthy discussion on some issues, none devolved into an edit war.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All but one of the images has the appropriate CC license. The only fair use image has an appropriate rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   <-- people are weird -->