Talk:Be More/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall review this, hopefully within the next few days. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:57, 12 June 2014 (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, no copyvios, 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):
 * 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):
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comments
 * Link storyboarding
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead mentions BMO without explaining who he is (like you did for the others). Consider adding brief blurb about him?
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to link Tompkins and McCann twice in lead; in fact, you can just remove the second mention of them (in the second paragraph)
 * Removed!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes this a reliable source? I've never heard of the site before.
 * It's a Q&A-type site. The person I'm citing, "MrMuto", is Adam Muto, the show's co-executive producer. He answers fan questions about aspects of the show through the site.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And is "For unknown reasons," your interpretation or the source's? (I'm having trouble accessing it).
 * I just removed it, since I could see how it was close to POV.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I inevitably ask this for many Adventure Time episodes, but aren't there any other reviews you can use? Does IGN review the show? Or EW? io9?
 * It's kind of spotty. More recent episodes have been reviewed by io9, but not this one. Only A.V. Club did it, as of now.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The episode first saw physical release..." -- "Physical" seems odd. Try "commercial release"?
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You use "episode" quite a bit in the article, which can make reading it a little boring; could you try sprinkling in other words (such as installment, or just using the episode's title more often?)
 * I deleted a few repetitions of the word.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Will place review on hold for usual 7 days. I'll check back here once you've replied to my comments for a final run-through. Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How do these changes look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I did some digging too for anything else on this episode via Google, and nothing really came up. You did a good job exhausting the existing sources. Nice work! Passing now. I'm not sure if AT DVDs include special features on episode production, but that might be a good place to also look).  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)