Talk:The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein/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):
 * 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:

In depth review
Please place a checkmark beside the item, when it is adressed.

Prose

 * ''Along with the separate story, "Oil on Candace"
 * Along with a seperate story [...]


 * Written by Martin Olson and Jon Colton Barry, its storyboards
 * Written by Martin Olson and Jon Colton Barry, the storyboards


 * To occupy the time, the doctor tells Perry of his Victorian ancestor
 * To occupy the time, Doofenshmirtz tells Perry of his Victorian ancestor.
 * In a previous line, the article talks about Dr.Phineastein. Since there are two doctors, the article needs to specify which one.

Production

 * Quoation marks are not needed over every term of The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein
 * The production section is weak
 * There is a paragraph with just two sentences
 * See the production section in Homer's Barbershop Quartet for more details.

Lead

 * The paragraphs in the lead are too short.
 * There are too many paragraphs for an article of this size.

This article has a few problems, which I will give one week to fix. Thanks Warrior  4321  01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no efforts were made to try and fix the article, the article has failed the good article review. warrior 4321  23:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)