Talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts/GA1

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

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Could use some minor copyediting throughout - there are a few one or two-sentence paragraphs that should be merged into others.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. The Production section relies solely on the DVD commentary - which though not inappropriate, could be helped by some secondary sources. Try searching to see if there are any secondary sources out there that discuss production of the episode.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The lede/intro is a bit too short. Per WP:LEAD, it should be an adequate standalone summary of all subections of the episode.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral tone. Passes here.
 * 5. Article stability? Stable for two weeks, prior to that there were some major revisions but all positive contributions. No major issues on the talk page. Passes here.
 * 6. Images?: 2 images, appropriate fair use rationale. Passes here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Gran2 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Such as?
 * 2) I've tried, I can't find any.
 * 3) It isn't? Something from every section is mentioned, and it seems adequate to me.
 * 1) Such as - well for one thing the one or two-sentence paragraphs in the article - I already mentioned that, above. There are other minor copyedits and tweaks that could be made throughout the article to improve its syntax and flow. I would suggest an informal review/read-through/copyedit from at least one editor not previously involved in the article itself, perhaps from WPP:COPY, WP:DOH, or WP:TV. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Okay, if you are sure you have exhausted secondary sources for possible discussion of Production info, I can AGF that the best we are going to get for that section's sources is the DVD commentary. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I respectfully disagree. "Something from every section" merely being "mentioned" is not "adequate" - per WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. -- The lede/intro paragraphs should be expanded accordingly. Not too much, but a bit, for sure. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Which "one or two-sentence paragraphs"? The only ones that I can see are in the Production and Reception sections, and they are about significantly different aspects, so combining them into one paragraph makes no sense in my opinion.
 * 2) Indeed. The DVD commentary is a perfectly fine source, and is usually the only source for production info.
 * 3) And I respectfully disagree. I think the lead is perfectly fine, but I'll expand it if you insist. Gran2 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) In that case perhaps you are not viewing this independently as having been a significant contributor to this article. Yet another reason why it would be a good idea to get some independent copyeditors to take a look, that have not been major contributors to the article. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that DVD commentary is an acceptable source, not the best though, and that we should strive to always include secondary sources in the Production section. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) As I said above, I disagree, and I do not think the lede/intro is GA-quality at this point in time. It is not acceptable, per the portion of WP:LEAD I quoted above. I do not insist anything, it is up to you, but as the lede/intro is not in accordance with WP:LEAD it will not be GA-quality until that is addressed. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
Made some edits to the WP:LEAD and copyediting, and GA passed. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)