Talk:Bad Jubies/GA1

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

Reviewer: 97198 (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. Note that I've never seen the show before. I've had a read-through and I've made a few changes to the wording where I felt like it could easily be made a bit tighter or more formal. Here are some other issues you may wish to address: I'll place the nomination on hold so you can respond to these comments. In my opinion the article meets almost all of the GA criteria bar a few issues with the writing and sourcing which I've outlined above. 97198 (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The episode guest stars Kevin Michael Richardson as both a sentient storm and an automated weather alert system. The "automated weather alert system" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, including the infobox which just credits Richardson "as the storm". I found this confusing and so might other unfamiliar readers.
 * I have included a blurb in the synopsis that mentions the storm alert system, and I have place Richardson's name immediately after it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the end, Jake is able to use a beat box made up of nature sounds to calm the storm. This is worded strangely since it sounds like "a beat box" is a physical thing. Maybe something along the lines of "Jake is able to beat box using nature sounds..."?
 * Yeah, that is awkward. I have changed it to "In the end, Jake begins beat boxing using nature sounds he has collected, which calms the storm." How is that?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To overcome this issue, Lepore claimed to have relegated herself to her bedroom for five weeks while she wrote and storyboarded the entirety of "Bad Jubies". I'm not sure how "To overcome this issue" connects this sentence to the previous one. She couldn't write dialogue so she confined herself to her bedroom? Maybe just lose that phrase, since the source doesn't clearly support it.
 * Removed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (Nielsen ratings are audience measurement systems that determine the audience size and composition of television programming in the United States) I don't think this is necessary. Even if readers weren't already familiar with Nielsen ratings, the context makes it clear what they are.
 * I was told to add it in previous FANs, so I just added it here to be safe.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The episode received largely positive reviews from critics. This is a bit of an overstatement since only two critics are quoted; I would just remove this sentence.
 * Removed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * making it the series's fourth win in this category I can't see this in the cited source. Also see comments below.
 * I changed 'fourth' to 'fifth' and added a link to the Emmy site, which lists "Bad Jubies" as the fifth "Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation" award for the series.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Adventure Time staffers Andy Ristaino, Nick Jennings, and Tom Herpich had previously won this reward in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively correct me if I'm wrong but in the Emmys source I can only see two previous wins in this category: Ristaino in 2013 and Herpich in 2015.
 * I have added a citation to specify this issue. Nick Jennings won for "Wizards Only, Fools".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * because Herpich's name was listed after Kolowski's in press releases, "Bad Jubies" is counted as the series's fourth win in this category According to whom? Feels like WP:OR.
 * That all has been removed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference 18 is missing a publisher.
 * Added.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the review! I have fixed/changed/responded to all of your points. How do these changes look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 (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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Screenshots are not usually used in TV episode articles anymore, but I think it is justified here considering the one-off animation techniques which are discussed at length in the article; the fair use rationale reflects this.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good! I'm happy to promote the article now. 97198 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Screenshots are not usually used in TV episode articles anymore, but I think it is justified here considering the one-off animation techniques which are discussed at length in the article; the fair use rationale reflects this.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good! I'm happy to promote the article now. 97198 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)