Talk:Spümcø/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The info is there, but I'm not sure if it's cohered into a GA yet.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "The idea of cartoons created by cartoonists would not happen again for some 25 years until Spümcø was founded and would eventually make history as the first animation studio of its kind." -- No idea what you're trying to say here. "Cartoons created by cartoonists"? Who else would be making them?There is also awkward phrasing at parts, with at least two instances of "x was confirmed to..." Also, I'm not sure what the MOS says about ending sentences in prepositions, but you might want to change the last sentence of the lead to avoid ending it in "for." Finally, Spümcø should be referred to in the singular; in some instances, it's referred to as "they."
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There is way too much TV.com, IMDb and Amazon; TV.com and IMDb shouldn't be used at all. NNDB is not reliable either. Is Big Cartoon Database a RS? Is this reliable? What about this (another Inbaseline source is used later on too)?Could you find a better reference than a YouTube clip (currently ref #27)?Ref #26, the abc.com.au source, doesn't have an access date."Over the next couple of years, a number of episodes were censored." isn't sourced. Otherwise, everything else is properly sourced.There shouldn't be references in the intro. The intro should summarize what's in the rest of the article without presenting new info. For starters, I would suggest moving the fact about how the company got its name to somewhere in the first subheader.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues here. The coverage is comprehensive and detailed enough to pass that criterion.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No issues here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Or here.
 * 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):
 * Or here.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Most of the information is there; it just needs a few more decent third-party references. I would also suggest offering it to the guild of copy-editors to help polish up the prose.

Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)