Talk:Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:

 * "animation ran from October 18 to December 8," What does "animation ran" mean? Is this referring to the production of the animation? I think this should be clarified in the article.
 * Yep, now "the animation process began on October 18 and finished on December 8 ..." — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Despite not believing Gaspin was familiar with the program, Harmon was planning to start an animation studio with Stamatopoulos and saw the suggestion as an opportunity to launch it." I'm not sure what the first part of the sentence is referring to, or why it is there. What information is it trying to tell me? Also, what is the connection between the two parts of this sentence, or should they be two separate sentences?
 * Well it's a bit of an NPOV understatement: Harmon basically thought Gaspin was full of shit and pretending to love the show but that he could leverage Gaspin's suggestion to his advantage. It would be misleading to say "Gaspin suggested an animated episode so they did it"—Community often created a lot of tension by going against what NBC execs wanted. Instead it's "Gaspin suggested an animated episode and Harmon thought 'what a good excuse to do what I wanted to do anyway'". See if the new text is any better. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Johnson would later work with the company on the stop motion film Anomalisa (2015)." This might be off-topic about the episode, and maybe should be removed.
 * Removed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Harmon recalled in 2018 that they were unable to include live action scenes in the episode." Any explanation why? If so, add that to the article.
 * Harmon said: There were other issues there that prevented us from mixing live action. I think that would've made the episode un-producible for whatever reasons. Too vague to quote, I think. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Maggie Furlong commented in TV Squad's that the episode" is the 's supposed to be there?
 * Fixed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "The episode was critically acclaimed for its animation and themes of holiday loneliness, earning the show its only Primetime Emmy Award in the Animation category." This information from the lede should probably be added to the "Awards" section.
 * Good point—added. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Comparative religion" links to Comparative religion, not the Community episode.
 * Fixed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Source check:
Version reviewed

Checked and verified: Refs 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

Ref 29: I could not find the quotes that proceed it in either the original or archived link. Is this the correct link for the citation?
 * An annoying feature of the website—scroll down too far and it gives the URL for the article below. Fixed now. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please ping me upon your response. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'd like to throw a quick comment into this GA review (I had thought about reviewing it myself but didn't have time). Ref. 4 is from Decider, which is operated by the New York Post, a generally unreliable source per WP:NYPOST. I asked about using Decider back in 2021 since it directly quotes individuals involved in the episode and is somewhat separate from the Post, but I didn't get much feedback. Other conversations at RSN (example) also sit on the fence. I'm not doing the review so ultimately I won't make the call, but maybe double-check that the cited information from Decider only pulls from direct quotes from the episode's crew – in other words, anything written in Decider's voice may not be suitable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked the information that is cited by the Decider source: most of it is attributed to the various staff members who worked on the article. Some of it has additional sources used to verify the information. The rest is uncontroversial or attributed to the writer as an opinion and I don't think it needs to be removed. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good point on Decider and I would say something similar to your opening comment from RSN. Decider has a very different purpose to the New York Post itself and when we consider this source in context, really all we have to believe is that it hasn't fabricated the interview. Other sources corroborate or are at least consistent with this particular piece. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the feedback! I believe I've addressed it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerns have been resolved. I'll pass this momentarily. Congratulations. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)