Talk:The Perfect Pear/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and one of a number nominated for GA within the same series. I will review it as part of the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive. simongraham (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for picking this up!

Comments

 * The article was created on 28 June 2017 but rewritten and expanded on 5 November 2021.
 * It is rated Start class.
 * 86.6% of authorship is by Styyx.
 * Eeyup! That's me. xD


 * The article is relatively short, with 691 words of readable prose, plus an infobox.
 * Quite the truth that the whole show lacks coverage after season 5 (this is from season 7), so this is all I got.


 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * Sections are very short, particularly Home media which is only 41 words long.
 * Just like the above, though even the most extensive MLP episode article, "A Canterlot Wedding", has an even shorter section with 36 words. Also I can rename the section to "Home media release" if needed.


 * Citations seem comprehensive.
 * Citations 13 and 14 are for Shout! Factory. Is there an independent source for the information?
 * I didn't think this would be a problem because other MLP GA's do this as well. The only thing I found was an Lake Agassiz Regional Library link (what?) that confirms "Hearts and Hooves" DVD:, and an Amazon link of the second DVD: , both of which (obviously) mention the title of this episode in the contents. These are the only (real) alternatives I can find to the primary sources.
 * Thank you for trying.


 * References appear to be from a range of web sources which are of variable quality. Please can you confirm that they are all reliable, particularly Equestria Daily which seems to be a fansite.
 * Equestria Daily has had a peer review, albeit more than 10 years ago, where it is mentioned that they "received coverage in mainstream media, and Hasbro/The Hub have acknowledged them as well, sending them exclusives and putting references to the site in official television advertisements". This information is sourced in the WP article itself. ScreenRant is considered a RS for entertainment-related topics but not for controversial BLP-stuff per WP:RSP. Since the topic related to this article is the former, I see no problem. According to this piece by Variety, Showbuzz Daily cited in this article for the ratings is founded by a former NBC executive. The only source that I have no information on about its credibility is Animation Magazine, but the sentence is also sourced by BroadwayWorld, so I'll go ahead and remove that once I'm finished with writing this whole thing.
 * That seems reasonable.


 * There is a single image with a fair use tag.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 12.3% chance of copyright violation, a low likelihood, and that is with the yahoo article cited.
 * I also looked at Earwig upon seeing this, and those are just the names of the characters, which doesn't seem like a problem to me.


 * There are no obvious grammar or spelling errors.
 * Didn't expect this, as this is kinda my weak point. :D


 * Although not a GA criteria, I suggest adding an ALT tag to the image.
 * Turns out there is already an alt (which wasn't done by me):.

Please can you take a look at these comments and ping me your thoughts. simongraham (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * These are my responses. Also noting that the assessment below misses "Broad in its coverage" from the six criteria. :) ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 12:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good spot!

Good work so far. A few more things:
 * The section Production and promotion does not seem to include anything on the production. Is there anything that can be added? For example, when was it recorded?
 * I'm afraid not. Though how the idea if this story started is kind of production, I believe.


 * The mention of William Shatner and Felicia Day seems to have no context. Can you add a bit about who they played, the process of their recruitment, what they thought of their involvement etc?
 * I could only add who they were known for playing, according to the press release by Discovery. (Clicked away without saving, so currently re-writing this)
 * That is great. I feel it would be good to add in the prose the names of their characters in the show. Is there anything that can be said about the other guests? Currently they are only named in the infobox, and the infobox should simply be a summary of the information in the body as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
 * ✅ with the prose. I've removed Peter New, as he isn't quite a guest in the show. Removed Bill Mondy as the only (reliable) thing confirming him as the source is the end credits.
 * Excellent work.


 * Are there any continuity comments with other episodes?
 * I might have misinterpreted this, but if you mean if the story continues in some sort of later episode or if we heard anything else: nope. They only appear in some flashbacks without a voice. The initial showrunner Lauren Faust wanted to say that they "passed away somehow", aaand one of the series' designers literally told that they are dead. So this is very much for children. xD
 * Harsh!

Please tell me your thoughts. simongraham (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is all I got. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Great work. I will finish the assessment. simongraham (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and getting me through my first GAN, cheers! ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are extremely welcome. I hope you have many more successes in the future. simongraham (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)