Talk:James Baxter the Horse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
Having looked through this article, I have concluded there are too many concerns, particularly in referencing and prose, to deem it worthwhile putting on hold so have failed the GA nomination. I have explained my reasons below.


 * in Lead: "Eventually, the two anger the spirit.." - eventually after what? Previous sentence was a brief introduction but use of "eventually" seems awkward with no prior background story to reflect on
 * I changed it to: "While seeking to emulates James Baxter's style, Finn and Jake accidentally anger the spirit of a deceased creature at a funeral and are nearly killed by it."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in Lead: "However, James Baxter arrives at the last moment and cheers the spirit up." - awkward standalone sentence that would probably be better integrated into a previous one, or the use of a semi-colon
 * I went the semicolon route.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in Lead: "Finn and Jake stumble across a horse named James Baxter (voiced by Baxter)" - "Baxter" is not linked in lead like the other characters, but is linked in the "plot" section. Needs to be consistent (James Baxter or Baxter?). Suggest linking full name in lead instead
 * James Baxter is indeed linked in the lede, in the sentence, "The episode guest stars noted animator James Baxter as the titular horse." To aid in clarity, in the middle of the lede, I wrote, "James Baxter (voiced by the Baxter the animator)"-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in Lead: "anger the spirit of a deceased creature" - what is the creature? Assume an animal but could be anything animate or unanimate
 * It's, uhhh, a weird milk demon thing? I changed it to 'being'.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in Lead: "The episode guest stars noted animator James Baxter as the titular horse." - Notable for what? Maybe put an in-line citation to a portfolio of some of his work
 * I just went ahead and removed 'noted' as it is kind of peacocky.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * in plot: "The destruction of an egg causes BMO" - who is BMO?
 * I added a link.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in plot: "so they journey across Ooo" - what is Ooo?
 * I changed it to "the magical land of Ooo wherein Finn and Jake live".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in plot: "frightening a young Candy Person" - frightened how? Who is Candy Person?
 * They say their names humorously, but accidentally frighten the person in the process. That's really all there is to it. As for the Candy Person, she's just a candy person from the Candy Kingdom. I feel it is unnecessary to explain the whole backstory, setting, mythology, and kingdoms of Ooo for the plot to an episode, when most of this info is covered in the parent article or the list of characters article, both of which are linked in the article.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in plot: "they return to the funeral, only to anger the deceased's ghost, who attempts to kill them" - assuming the "deceased" is the creatre mentioned in lead, but this isn't clear. Why was it angered? How does it try to kill them? Very vague. Also excessive use of commas.
 * I changed it to: "However, when they return to the funeral, they accidentally anger the ghost of the deceased individual. This spirit attempts to kill Finn and Jake, but right before the two meet their demise, James Baxter arrives and calms the ghost."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in plot: "travel to the So-Und Institute of Sound" - which is what?
 * I added: "(a research facility that studies the nature of sound)"-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in plot: "Eventually, Jake decides to morph into a trumpet" - awkward use of "eventually" again - was there events prior to this or did it happen straight away? Maybe substitute "eventually" for a brief rundown of events occuring prior
 * How is, "After much experimentation"? With this being Adventure Time, much of what they try is sort of nonsensical and hard/unnecessary to explain in words.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in plot: "Right before Finn and Jake are killed, James Baxter arrives and calms the ghost down." - Maybe choose different wording to "right before" at start of sentence. How does James Baxter calm the ghost?
 * How is: "This spirit attempts to kill Finn and Jake, but right before the two meet their demise, James Baxter arrives and calms the ghost by making it laugh"?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * in production: "Baxter, however, animated his scenes from his home studio." - awkward standalone sentence - try and integrate into an existing one
 * I expanded it so that it reads: "Most of the series' animation is completed in Korea, but Baxter animated his scenes from his home studio."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in production: "Baxter was forced to animated in the center" - animated or animate?
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in production: "Baxter's wife, Kendra, did all the clean-up work for his animation. Inking and painting of the animation was done in South Korea" - could be a single sentence
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * no references in lead at all (such as citation of the viewing figures)
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I have cited all of this information in the body of the article, and as such, I feel that it is redundant to cite it again in the lede. The no-citations-in-the-lede approach has been embraced by myself and used in nine featured articles. As such, I feel that there is a precedent for my stylistic approach, and a disliking of this style should not be a reasonable criterion to fail this article.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * no references in plot section - verification? Is this the correct plot as it happened?
 * This article is about the episode in question. As such, it would be somewhat redundant to cite the plot. Per WP:TVPLOT: "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable." In a plot section, the only thing that the MoS requires be cited is pop culture references and the like. This is standard protocol for other TV episode pages (including other GAs and FAs).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * some broken references that need fixing as per this reference checker (example: 1st refernce is dead on the link and archive link)
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * referencing to question & answer type sites, such as spring.me is not appropriate or verifiable
 * The Spring.me citation satisfies all five criteia found at WP:ABOUTSELF. While, you say that it's not verifiable, Adam Muto tweeted about the site himself, and there is "no reasonable doubt as to [the Twitter's] authenticity".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article, finding suitable references and cleaning up the prose and grammar before relisting for GA nomination. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the review. I have improved many of the issue that you have pointed out. However, I would like to say, that I disagree with and have responded to several of your points. I would kindly request you peek through what I have written and consider my rebuttals/explanations.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pleasantly surprised to see you reacted quite swiftly, even if you disagree with some of my points. I still, on a personal level, feel not too comfortable with the plot having not even a single reference to collaborate what has been written, despite what is supposedly acceptable. I also believe that an article should be able to stand independently without the need for someone to guess or research other articles to determine explanations to terminologies that aren't clear on the article they're reading; you could, at the very least, link to the corresponding section on the parent/associated article(s) for "OOo" and "Candy Person", which in my view would be an appropriate substitute for further in-line explanation (there may be other instances where this would be beneficial too).
 * Aside from then, perhaps it would benefit from the inclusion of another screenshot or two that could liven the page up a bit (I am thinking to enhance engagement), though the prose itself is at least now an improvement. By all means renominate, though I think it'd be good for someone else to perhaps undertake the 2nd review. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)