Talk:Bubble and Squeek
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Culix in topic Initial article review
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Link for the term 'Redraw'
editIs there another word for the term 'redraw'? Is there a Wikipedia article or wiktionary page that explains it? I feel the word should be wiki linked in this article for unfamiliar readers, but I'm not sure where to link to. I don't think Limited animation is quite the same thing. --Culix (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Initial article review
editI was asked to give an article review. I am not a member of WikiProject Animation, but here are my thoughts. I evaluated the article against the Style guide and Assessment scale.
- Firstly this is a good start to the article. It contains information, an overview, and some history on the show. That is good. The two pictures do add a lot to my understanding.
- It would be very helpful to add information on what critics, reviews, or other people said about the show. Is it very notable for some reason? How does it fit into cartoon or cultural history? Is there a reason it "faded into obscurity" (as said by the lead section)? If fans saved their copies on video tapes, does that mean it has a lot of fans? The article would gain a lot by answering some of these questions and being able to cite references. Having other references with more info or details would add a lot.
- The Style guide on Organization specifically mentions explaining "why the show is notable and important", so that seems to agree.
- Is it possible to add other information mentioned in the Organization section?
- Add an infobox?
- First air date
- Anything else about the history or development? Any reason why other copies of the episodes couldn't be found? That could be interesting.
- All of the external links point to episodes on youtube. I am not sure how e.g. Wikipedia:Video_links feels about that. The Style guide on external links mentions keeping them relevant and small in number. To lower the number of links used in the 'External Links' section, perhaps the episodes could be put into a playlist, and the article could link to the playlist instead?
Given the above, here are my thoughts on assessment rating:
- The article is at least Start class. It has "a usable amount of good content", and is more than the "very basic description" of a Stub class.
- I would err on the side of caution, and say it is not yet C class. It has "some gaps or missing elements" - namely, noting what made or makes the cartoon notable, and how it fits into cartoon or cultural history.
Hope this helps! --Culix (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)