Talk:Spoo (food)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Comports for the most part with the MoS but I would suggest de-linking common words like "sighing." The multiple short sections make the article choppy. Can the information be re-arranged to make the flow better? Perhaps merge "Before Bablon 5" to the end of "Origins in Bablyon 5" and rename the section to simply "Origins" and combine the "Real-world recipes" and "In popular culture" sections (and call it something other than "In popular culture" because I loathe that construction, but would not fail the article because of it). I'm not sure that the sentence about fans offering JMS a plate of food really adds any value to the article.
 * ✅ Hard to expand on the Spoohunter promo, though, since it has no English dialogue.  I'm open to ideas--feel free to view it yourself and propose any ideas that come to mind.
 * Another thought...can you expand the Spoohunter and parody song mentions with a brief plot description (a couple of sentences) outlining how spoo is involved for the former and perhaps a quote from the lyrics for the latter? Otto4711 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to place the article on hold for seven days and I am also going to ask for a second opinion regarding the sourcing and image issues. Please let me know if you have any questions about this review. Otto4711 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * My biggest area of concern with this article. The reference list is formatted acceptably. However, each reference within current note 1 will need an associated page number, as will current note 11. Is space.com a reliable source? There are no references for spoo's appearance in "And the Rock Cried Out..." and "Meditations on the Abyss." I am deeply concerned over the sourcing to message board posts. Per WP:RS and WP:SPS such sources are to be used with caution and a great deal of the article is sourced to them. There is no original research in the article.
 * Ref 1 and 11: ✅
 * Space.com a reliable source? Check Space.com and decide for yourself. Note especially the second sentence: "Its stories are often syndicated to other media outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo!, and USA Today."
 * Unreferenced episodes ✅
 * Message board posts. They are all used as specified in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB.  All forum posts referenced directly quote the work of the author of the "Spoo" concept, aren't controversial, and don't involve any claims about third parties.
 * 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):
 * All images tagged with fair-use descriptions, however, I have doubts that either the Skeletor picture or the Spoohunter picture would survive a challenge under WP:NFCC #8. How much do these images really add to the reader's understanding that can't be expressed in text?
 * Note that WP:NFCC #8 has been a contentious issue (see WP:NFCC_Criterion_8_debate), and that this is simply a GA review, not an FA. I think it's fair to say that the images are certainly acceptable within the shorter wording, and are arguably acceptable within the longer wording.  Given that the article predates the argument over NFCC#8 by a few years, I don't think that should be held against it.  Both images in question are already in fair use on separate pages on en.wikipedia, so removing them from this article, if desired, wouldn't remove them entirely.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Note that WP:NFCC #8 has been a contentious issue (see WP:NFCC_Criterion_8_debate), and that this is simply a GA review, not an FA. I think it's fair to say that the images are certainly acceptable within the shorter wording, and are arguably acceptable within the longer wording.  Given that the article predates the argument over NFCC#8 by a few years, I don't think that should be held against it.  Both images in question are already in fair use on separate pages on en.wikipedia, so removing them from this article, if desired, wouldn't remove them entirely.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the review. I am out of town at the moment, but see nothing here that I can't address. The page numbers in the citations will have to wait until Sunday at the earliest, as I do not have the books in question with me. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one other quick thing. The quote "are the only creatures of which the Interstellar Animal Rights Protection League says, simply, 'Kill 'em.'" neds a separate reference. I'm sure it's probably the same as the one at the end of the paragraph but each individual quote needs its own citation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These two quotes from Lane still need page numbers. Once that's done I'll pass the article. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed those before. Good thing, too, because I acutally cited the wrong volume for those quotes. Everything should be kosher now. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed those before. Good thing, too, because I acutally cited the wrong volume for those quotes. Everything should be kosher now. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

12/7 Re-review?
As of 2008-12-07, all of the above issues have been addressed. Can you please review the changes I've made and see if you agree that I've improved the article to your standards? Also, if you decide that a second opinion continues to be needed, would you mind articulating the outstanding issue(s) separately below this, so a reviewer can quickly see the area(s) for which a second opinion is requested? Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference 1 still needs page numbers for each citation in the lead. The Animal Rights Protection League quote needs to be cited as does the depression quote earlier in the same paragraph. Each individual direct quote needs a separate cite, even if it's the same cite as the one at the end of the paragraph, per Good article criteria 2c. Since there's now a non-forum post for the first appearance of spoo, I suggest sourcing it to the interview rather than the archived forum post and deleting the first part of the sentence that mentions the B5 fan discovering it. That cuts the forum references to three. With the second opinion on the images I'm satisfied, so I think just these few things and we'll be good. Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do the page references for the lead tonight. On the fan discovery of the Skeletor/Spoo reference, I've added more forum posts, without interpretation, as per WP:PRIMARY.  All the usages of Straczynski forum posts as primary sources support direct quotes (full disclosure: one wasn't--I just converted it) from Straczynski, who, as the primary author, etc., is himself a published expert on Babylon 5.

Second Opinion
Am I correct in assuming the entirity of the second paragraph is using reference 7? I feel references need to be added after direct quotes earlier on in the paragraph to make their origin clear. I am also concerned with the use of the forum as a reference. In the Skeletor reference and "spoo is" reference for example you can not see what Straczynski's has been asked. I feel this decreases the reliability of the references further. It seems that this first paragraph of the origins section is heavily reliable on sources from the forum and I think this is an issue.

As for the images, I think the Babylon park image would pass. I'd let the skeletor image go as well but I think alot of editors wouldn't.

Any questions or comments please feel free to ask. Million_Moments (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Lane2 reference, which itself draws from the Straczynski newsgroup post, has been added to the other quotations in that paragraph.
 * I found the post of the fan who discovered the Spoo/Skeletor connection, and cited it from Google Groups. I wasn't able to find the quote which generated "spoo is" as a terse response--I believe that is lost, since it was on Genie or Compuserve, and not indexed by Google.
 * I don't really understand what the issue with forum posts is. 1) They're verifiable from Google groups, 2) They follow WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS, and 3) they're acknowledged to be primary sources.  What about the way in which these primary sources are used in this article is incompatible with WP:WIAGA?  If we took out every web reference, the article would still have multiple published book references to meet WP:N and WP:V, so I see these as just icing on the cake.
 * I'll be happy to make other enhancements desired, as long as the text exists for me to legitimately do so. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

12/15: What next?
Are there any pending items that I need to address in order for this to receive an up-or-down evaluation? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)