Talk:Pee (South Park)/GA1

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

Reviewer: JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hunter, I'll be reviewing this article. As with all my reviews, I'm going to do this one haphazardly :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The entire plot section is not referenced. Not sure if this is a problem.
 * 2) *I know you know this now, but WP:TVMOS doesn't require citations for plot summaries. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) The word 'pee' is used seven times in the plot section (excluding direct quotes). I don't really think that's necessary - shouldn't it be replaced with a more neutral term? 'Pee' is somewhat of a dysphemism in the mildest sense.
 * 4) *I changed most of them to urine. Is this acceptable? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is. But...since the name of the episode itself is "Pee", should it be mentioned in the article somewhere at least once to explain the it's a slang word for "urine", even though it's common knowledge and fairly deducible? -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  02:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Apparently, "There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article". I know it's minor, but the bit about the original UK broadcast date doesn't show up anywhere in the article. This isn't too important so if you can't fit it in it doesn't really matter.
 * 2) *Actually, this has come up at other episode GANs, and I hadn't been able to find sources for the UK dates (which were added by other people, not me). I dropped it from those articles, and I've now dropped it from this one. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So for the time being, this article is on hold. It shouldn't take too long to fix this up so I await your reply :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, 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:
 * JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)