Talk:The Juice Is Loose/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this right away, just thought I'd set up the review page now. Canadian  Paul  01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Some comments:
 * Reference #4 is not working.
 * Done, replaced the reference. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Under "Plot", the first sentence of the second paragraph is way, way too long. It needs to be split into two, maybe even three, separate sentences because it's very difficult to read in its current state. The same goes with the first sentence of the third paragraph - just because half of it is bracketed off doesn't make it any easier to read.
 * Done. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same paragraph, "but instead they are met with an angry mob intent on driving Simpson out" - you can't use the pronoun "they" here because it is unclear to whom it refers (I'm guessing Simpson and Peter, but that's not how the sentence is set up)
 * Done. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same paragraph, "The mob went on a chase;" you switch to past tense here despite the rest of the paragraph being in present tense - this needs fixing.
 * Done. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Under "Production", first paragraph, - "executive producer Chris Sheridan had to explain to the Fox executives why the segment should be featured in the episode." - Considering how critical the Twitty segment was to the negative reception, I would be interested in knowing what justification Sheridan used. It would make the article more informative if we knew how Sheridan convinced the Fox executives - is this information available?
 * I don't believe a reason was given, to my knowledge. If the statement is irrelevant without an explanation, do you suggest removing it? Gage (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "The TV Critic" considered a reliable enough source for reception? I have absolutely no idea, so I'm just curious.
 * I've removed the review. I agree with your questioning of its reliabilty. Gage (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  02:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I tided up the prose a bit, but overall I think that it meats the Good Article criteria now, and thus I will be passing it as such. I wouldn't remove the Sheridan comment, since it's important to understanding the segment, it's just too bad that there isn't more of an explanation. Anyhow, congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian   Paul  03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)