Talk:Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror/GA2

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Plot: ...when she finds out that Jeremy, a boy for whom she has romantic feelings for... One too many "for"s there.
 * She finds pleasure in the beach after being crowned "Queen Wahine" following an accidentally flawless limbo performance and catches the attention of Jeremy. "finds pleasure" You might want to reword that as it conveys possibly unwanted connotations.
 * Candace is depressed, but the boys find the day to be a successful one. How?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref #3 failed verification, nothing thereabout the rating; ref #5 says nothing about this episode; neither does ref #6; ref #12 doesn't actually say that "Backyard Beach" is from this episode; neither does ref #13; ref #14 me3ntions the episode just in passing; ref #15 doesn't mention "lawn, "gnome" or "beach"; ref #16 is to Wikipedia, where it merely mentions the thepisode in a listr. Wikiepdia is not a reliable source, please read WP:RS.
 * The reference is NOT citing Wikipedia! It's citing the special, which happens to have it's own article. Those "passing references" give substantial coverage to the episode as information is CLEARLY given.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 00:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference is NOT citing Wikipedia! It's citing the special, which happens to have it's own article. Those "passing references" give substantial coverage to the episode as information is CLEARLY given.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 00:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no references which give "substantial coverage" to this episode. It thus fails WP:EPISODE and needs to be merged into Phineas and Ferb.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am not listing this as a good article on notability grounds alobne. There no refernces giving more than a passing mention to this episode. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the policy page, you'd know that an episode article meets notability if there are cited sources to construct a valid reception section. Which there is. Ref 15 is the only one which doesn't name the episode specifically, but it specifically states that all episodes on that particular DVD were lacking, as the article clearly states. I do not find your argument for failing this article to be in anyway sound.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 00:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am not listing this as a good article on notability grounds alobne. There no refernces giving more than a passing mention to this episode. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the policy page, you'd know that an episode article meets notability if there are cited sources to construct a valid reception section. Which there is. Ref 15 is the only one which doesn't name the episode specifically, but it specifically states that all episodes on that particular DVD were lacking, as the article clearly states. I do not find your argument for failing this article to be in anyway sound.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 00:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)