Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants season 2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 15:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

This article is organized well, and it seems reasonably complete. The sourcing is just great. The main problem with the article is the quality of the prose. There are places in nearly every paragraph where the prose is clunky and awkward and should be reworded.
 * Thanks for that. BTW, the prose is also my problem as I'm not really good in English. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I understand. It's great to work with a nominator who's willing to make the necessary changes, even when it's a lot of details. I've copy-edited some more, and I really like the changes you've made so far. I'll finish the review today, and I have no doubt you'll fix all the issues promptly. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence tries to do too many things, and should be split. (It should probably end with "July 26, 2003", and a new sentence should begin with "The season contained".)
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "upon which nearly 40 percent of its audience of 2.2 million were aged 18 to 34" ("Upon" isn't the right preposition, and the sentence should probably be split. Besides that, I can't tell if you're referring to 40% of Rugrats' audience, 40% of SpongeBob's audience, or 40% of Nickelodeon's audience.)
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Staff writer Derek Iversen on the pick up, said" (Just say "Staff writer Derek Iversen said".)
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The season marked the start of the series to shift from cel animation, introduced during the first season, to digital ink and paint" (Was cel animation introduced during the first season? Or was the shift introduced? And it's not clear what it means when you say a season marked the start of a series to shift.)
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "to come up on much of the story lines of an episode" (I think you mean to come up with much of the story lines of episodes.)
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "experience on a time" is an odd construction. (Say "experience when", and drop the "on a time" from the direct quote.)
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "where Mr. Krabs blaspheme" (It should be "blasphemes". Also, is "blaspheme" the correct word? Did anything in the episode imply that the utterance was blasphemous?)
 * ✅? Is the word I used to replace the former better? 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've improved it, and it's fine now. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No comma is needed before "and his pet snail Gary".
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase "starfish best friend" sounds too casual. Try "SpongeBob's best friend, a starfish named Patrick Star"
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When a list contains multiple complex entries that each contain commas, it's best to separate list entries with semicolons. So, for instance, try this: "Other members of the cast were Carolyn Lawrence as Sandy Cheeks, a squirrel from Texas; Clancy Brown as Mr. Krabs, a miserly crab obsessed with money and SpongeBob's boss at the Krusty Krab; and Mr. Lawrence as Plankton, a small green copepod and Mr. Krabs' business rival." (The following sentence has the same problem.)
 * ✅ and thanks. 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Drop "in" from "Tibbitt was given the role in voicing Potty the Parrot".
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of "the season episodes feature guest voices", just say "episodes feature guest voices".
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're missing spaces at "SpongeBob SquarePantsaired" and "thatThe Mollusk".
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a "he" missing from the direct quote at "told me was a marine biologist"?
 * Yes, there is. 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "for the 2004 film The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie as part of the its soundtrack" (Try "for the 2004 film The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie and as part of its soundtrack")
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of "that was later released on SpongeBob SquarePants: The Yellow Album in 2005", try "which was later released on SpongeBob SquarePants: The Yellow Album in 2005".
 * ✅ 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are some problems with the formatting of direct quotes.
 * In paragraph 1 of "Production", are the [bracketed] words in the quote yours, or are they in the source? If they're not in the source, I don't see a reason for them; it's a direct quote, and it's clear what he meant.
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes never have to begin with ellipses. Since it's not the first thing the person ever said, it's clear there was text before it, so it's redundant.
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the same reason, direct quotes never need to end with an elipses, unless you're indicating that someone's voice trailed off.
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote "had a secret box [as a child]" adds little, and should just be reworded instead of using a direct quote. (For instance, "The idea came to Drymon because he too had a secret box as a child.")
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reader will not know what "grabbing a 4.8 rating/21 share" means. Is there a link to a Wikipedia article that explains this? If not, it should be explained or reworded.
 * ✅? I linked it to Nielsen ratings and I'm not sure with it. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The summaries for 1b, 11b, 16b, 18a, 18b, 19a, and 20b contain run-on sentences, and should be broken into two sentences each. (Also, 18b has other problems.)
 * 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally, here are some miscellaneous issues.
 * I don't know if "Reel" awards should have en-dashes or em-dashes, but I'm sure it should be consistent.
 * For the consistency, I used em-dash. Do you think this is better or it's just not? 11:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect en-dashes are closer to what the source uses, so they might be a tiny bit better. But so long as it's consistent, it's not a problem for me. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The "f-word" links to wiktionary, but it should instead link to the Wikipedia article.
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like the Season 1 reviewer, I think the episode descriptions should be longer.
 * 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it more, I've changed my mind. Since the segments are only 11 minutes long, it's fine to have short summaries. If you want to expand the summaries, that will improve the article, but it isn't necessary for GA status. (It's most important to expand the shortest summaries, like "The Krusty Krab introduces a night shift". Longer summaries, like "When Gary has to take a bath, he refuses to enter the bathtub, so he makes SpongeBob do it", are probably fine already.) – Quadell (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll improve it! 04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅? I have added and fixed some summaries in the chart. Is it better now? Thanks. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 07:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Similarly, you should remove the "of SpongeBob SquarePants" from "The second season of SpongeBob SquarePants was..." in the third paragraph of reception.
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Episodes 1a and 1b were released on November 2, but episodes 2a and 2b were released on October 26? What happened here? (The first sentence mentions that the season began with "Something Smells" and "Bossy Boots", which are 2a and 2b. Quite confusing.)
 * This is quite hard to explain and I don't know how to begin or how to explain it at all. BTW, the episodes in the list are arranged based on its prod order in the DVD. Each episodes of SpongeBob has two segments that are 11-min long and some segments air separately. If we will order it by its orig air date, the list will be confusing. Per run or showing, the pair of episodes air as is and if we'll arrange by dates, and when the episode air, the list will not be followed because the segments were not with their "partner". The paired episodes "Shanghaied" and "Gary Takes a Bath" aired in different dates, where the latter aired during the third season, while it's not a third season episode at all. "Something Smells" and "Bossy Boots" aired first than 1a/b but in the order, 2a/b are the second pair of episodes. Is that satisfying or fair enough? 11:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't really understand. But here are the important questions: Is it accurate to say "The season contained 20 episodes, beginning with the episodes 'Something Smells' and 'Bossy Boots'"? And is the chart accurate when it says those episodes are 2a and 2b, released on October 26? If both those are accurate, then there is no problem. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. BTW, "Something Smells" and "Bossy Boots" aired first than the 1a/b. But, in prod order, "Something Smells" and "Bossy..." is the second pair of episodes. Anyway, the chart is accurate but I'll improve that quoted sentence in the lead. Thanks. 04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have edited the lead to "The second season of the American animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants, created Stephen Hillenburg, aired on Nickelodeon from October 26, 2000, to July 26, 2003, and consists of 20 episodes." Is that better? I think the "beginning with the..." is not necessary. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best solution. – Quadell (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be best to drop "for unknown reasons". Future publications may reveal a reason, and we don't want to imply anything.
 * ✅ 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FICTION, all plot summaries should use the present tense. Most of these summaries use present tense, but 1a and 1b incorrectly switch to past tense in parts. (So, for instance, "SpongeBob forgot how to tie his shoes" should be "SpongeBob forgets how to tie his shoes".)
 * Thanks. I'll work on that. 04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet finished the review, but this will give you something to work with while I continue reviewing the article. – Quadell (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reviewing this. I do look forward on the result of this review. Thanks again. :) BTW, Some issues you addressed were resolved by, whom I would like to thank. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now finished the review. I'm putting this nomination on hold. If all issues are resolved in the next seven days, the article will pass. – Quadell (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * All issues have been resolved.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 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):
 * Images are free or used correctly
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This passes all our GA criteria. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Quadell for this review! :) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 13:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This passes all our GA criteria. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Quadell for this review! :) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 13:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)