Talk:One Hundred (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MuZemike (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues

In the lead paragraph, you have "One Hundred" listed four times. Is there any way you can list "the episode" or "it" in subsequent mentionings?
You need to provide some sort of introduction into the "Plot" section, such as "The episode begins with..." or similar.
Master Shake then flies off to California ... so he deserves it. → The sentence is too long-winded and is causing me to lose track as to what is going on. Please split that sentence up and make it easier to understand.
A television executive replies that because Aqua Teen Hunger Force is only eleven minutes long, they only have fifty half-hours of material. → So a TV station only has 50 half-hours of material because ATHF is 11 minutes long? That doesn't make sense there.
Carl makes a brief appearance as well. → Is there a reason why he is mentioned separately from the characters in the previous sentence?
They all run into a monster, soon after Frylock unmasks the monster, who turns out to be One Hundred in disguise. → the part after the first comma is improper grammar form. That part needs to be rewritten.
Why is there a one-sentence paragraph at the end of the "Plot" section. Why can it not be in the previous paragraph?
All the paragraphs in the "Production" and "Release and reception" sections can easily be combined into one full paragraph.
I would merge the "Cultural references" section into another section, preferably tacked on at the end of the "Production" section.
The part about the IGN review needs to be rewritten completely. I cannot make if your simply narrating from the review itself or if you're actually trying to summarize what the reviewer felt.

Coverage issue

This article is sorely lacking in coverage and falls way short of WP:GACR#3a. At least I would expect much more than one review, and as such it's no wonder why this barely squeaked past AfD for notability.

Verifiability issues

You need something more reliable than IMDB, I'm afraid.
Frylock later makes reference to the 2012 phenomenon, when he says Mayans invented the number 100. → The 2012 phenomenon is not mentioned in the source. How do we know, just because Frylock says that the Mayans invented the number 100, that he's referencing to 2012?
[1] is unreliable (whereas this is better), and so is this. Both of those are strictly based off user-generated content. Now, that one in the middle is fine, but I would think you could use the Nielsen information itself (i.e. from their own reports or their site) to verify that.

Conclusions

On hold pending some improvements to the above issues, and hopefully some more substantive stuff can show up to rectify the coverage issues. Otherwise, I am leaning towards failing this GA nomination primairly on the basis of WP:GACR#3a. I'll keep it on hold for about a week and see what develops. –MuZemike 22:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failed – I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this GAN due to the issues above, which have not been addressed. Please work on them before considering another GA nomination. --MuZemike 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]