Talk:Clown in the Dumps/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this started! Give me a few hours to read the article. BenLinus1214^talk 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Is the infobox image really necessary? It doesn't add much to the article. I'm happy for you to try and persuade me otherwise, but is there another screenshot of the episode that would make more sense? Perhaps something from the couch gag, as it is discussed heavily in the article?
  • I included it as it shows the "hook" to the episode that had been reported on for months prior - that a mystery character would die. This "hook" is clearly visible in the poster. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you disagree, I will get rid of the lead image and the portrait of Hertzfeld, and put a still from the sequence into the reception section. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• In the first production paragraph, there's a lot of repetition of the word "confirmed" or "it was confirmed", making the paragraph clunky. Are there synonyms or other sentence constructions you could use?
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• You say that "several news outlets suspected that Krusty the Clown would be killed off," yet you have one source. There's a Hollywood Reporter source in the Rolling Stone source that would suffice.
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• The Reception section needs some organizational work--I would probably organize it by first stating ratings, then positive reviews, then negative reviews, then Jean's reaction. Also, I think there should be a critical consensus--something along the line of "polarized critical reaction."
• Link to IGN, Paste (magazine).
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• In the lead, you mention Jeff Ross, Sarah Silverman, and David Hyde Pierce having guest-starring roles in the episode and yet have no other mention of them in the article. Is there any production info on them?
  • Production notes seem to be a little thin. There's this which seems to have accurate reports in November 2013, but I have no idea how credible the source is. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: The bottom line is that there's some imaging, writing, and organizational work to do before I can pass. I'm not going to put it on hold, but you should address these issues soon. BenLinus1214^talk 23:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice. It's much better now. And the image thing makes sense now. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 01:03, 14 May 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: