Talk:Goodbye Mr. Fish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I feel the plot and production sections need to be fleshed out quite a bit, right now, they're on the stub side of things. Placing this one hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Picture: Add a rationale as to why the screen capture is necessary to this article
 * Beefed up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Intro: Is there a good source for the various titles?
 * I reffed each variation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Intro: Link first season to here
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Intro: I feel the entire section needs to be organized a little better. Maybe go Title, director, writer, air date, etc./paragraph break/plot, ratings, and accolades
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot: Maybe flesh out the plot a bit. Right, now its rather stubby
 * I have no sources to turn to and have returned the DVD. As I mention below, maybe we should scrap this nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Production: This section needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more. As of right now, its only two sentences that are border-line fancrufty. Is there any info on writing, filming, casting, etc?
 * In all honesty, I was iffy on nominating this due to lack of content. I don't have a problem with it failing. This is all I've got.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reception: "considered the episode to be a highlight" A highlight of what, the series, the season?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reception: "Several writers who wrote about the series mentioned this episode before mentioning any others including" I feel this sentence is a little clunky, maybe reword it
 * Better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reception: "(in 1987 after the first 81 episodes)" I would cut down on the use of parenthesis and use either commas or em-dashes
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reception: "In the fourth season of the series during the two-part November 12, 1987 "Looking Back" episode in which the family tries to help the newlywed Sondra Huxtable and Elvin reconcile after their first fight, they recount the highlights of the first 81 episodes to help Elvin understand Sondra and her family and this episode is highlighted." Huge run-on sentence break-up and reword, as it has an awkward prose flow
 * Reception: I'm not sure if the quote should be placed in at the very end. Maybe add a quote box like this. Also, the article mentions another quote, why no mention?
 * References: Who wrote [3]? Needs access date as well as page numbers (if not online)
 * References: A good chunk of these need access dates
 * References: Dates need to be consistent. Either MM-DD-YYYY, or DD MM YYYY, or MM DD, YYYY, etc.
 * I wasn't sure about even nominating this episode. I am kind of withdrawing it. There is not much I can do to raise the quality of this up any more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I think its a solid B article, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're OK with that, I'll leave it at that. I'll give it a few more days for maybe something interesting to pop up.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a B. I am off to other stuff. You can close it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)