Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/GA1

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would love to review this article, and to help get it up to GA status. I should begin writing comments within a matter of days. PrairieKid (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much PrairieKid! I'm looking forward to this. Thannks again and have a nice day! :) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 09:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I hate to be picky, but all I want is the criticisms section to be cut back a little bit more. Thank you again for the hard work. PrairieKid (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC) It looks great! Thanks for all the hard work. Spongebob Squarepants, welcome to the GA list. PrairieKid (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The cast seems to have two sections. (Here and here.) I had a lot more written here, but it seems to have disappeared. I will look through the article again for the problems. (They were a few minor grammar issues. PrairieKid (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The two sections mentioned above are two different sections. The Characters section is about the description of the characters in the series, and the voice cast section talks about the cast members who are part of the series. I'm sorry about those things you have written, but I did some massive removal specifically on the section of list of cast members without descriptions since the day I thought it could be brought up to GA.
 * I think we can agree to disagree here. It isn't a major problem.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sources are good. I checked several at random to ensure that they were valid and said what they were supposed to.
 * Great! Thanks for that! :)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The criticism, other media and merchandise sections could definitely be cut back a little.
 * I'll fix that but I already removed some. Do you think it's enough?
 * Could still use a little bit less in the criticisms section. I would combine the sections into 1.
 * Looking over it again, I would say it actually looks fine. I'll let it go. PrairieKid (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes sir.
 * Thanks! :)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Based on edit history and talk page, I would say its good.
 * Of course.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I would like more pictures, but I understand why they aren't that many. Maybe once a few of the sections are cut off a little (see above), it will seem like more pictures.
 * I was also thinking of that. However, there are no much images about its cast members or crews that are available.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will put this article on hold for 1 week. There is very little that needs to be done here before I can make it a GA. Thank you to the nominator for all the hard work, and waiting until the article was nearly perfect before nominating. PrairieKid (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks PrairieKid for taking this review on. I'm very grateful. I hope the article's quality is good enough to pass GA. Thanks! :) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)