Talk:Stakes (miniseries)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello there! This is second on my "to review" list currently. Johanna (talk to me!) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Should there be an infobox here?
 * I went ahead and added one.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would link to miniseries in the first sentence.
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would call her Princess Bubblegum and link to that page as that name would be more familiar to most readers.
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sugar's song, however..." This makes it sound like the reviews of the series in general were negative, which does not seem to be the case from the previous clause of that sentence.
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that I usually don't see a plot summary for the entire season have its own section—I feel like it's usually under the banner of "Episodes" before the actual episode list. But it's up to you.
 * That's true, but since this is done in the Adventure Time (season 7), and this is about the entire miniseries, I felt it was appropriate to just have one big ol' plot summary at the top.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "the miniseries could trace its origin back to ideas that..." I would replace that with "the miniseries originated with ideas that..."
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph beginning "the miniseries' story", I would sprinkle those refs throughout the paragraph for easier access.
 * I added a few more to make it clearer what is sourcing what.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph, there's an unnecessary quotation mark before "Stays"?
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't use so many social media sources myself, but given what they are, I think they're fine...
 * Fair point, although all the accounts are verified/legit, and some (like the "King of Ooo" Tumblr) are official and Cartoon Network-sponsored.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I might reduce the size of the images in the "Cast" section. They take up close to half the screen and would work just as well at a smaller resolution.
 * I shrunk 'em down a bit.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "vocal talents" a little non-neutral
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "lending their roles to various character." Apart from the lack of a plural ending for the last word, role and character are synonyms, so I would replace role with "voice."
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually put a critical consensus at the top of the "Critical reception" section.
 * I just copied the bit from the intro.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are TechnoBubble and Popzara reliable sources/significant viewpoints?
 * I went ahead and removed Popzara, but I don't see anything really wrong with TechnoBuffalo. It's just an online review site with a staff of writers.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You use the verb to applaud three times at the beginning of the discussion of three consecutive reviews.
 * Tweaked a bit.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the DVD release, why do you show Regions 1 and 4 and not any of the others?
 * Those are the two regions that most commonly release the show on DVD, but nothing has been released yet.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ref 15 is dead.
 * I checked it, and it seemed to work.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ref 18 now, but it you apparently archived it.

That's all I have! Sorry for the delay. :) Johanna (talk to me!) 01:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , how's that? Thanks for the review.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Pass! Johanna (talk to me!) 20:40, 20 February 2016 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: