Talk:Dad Behavior/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DanielleTH (talk · contribs) 02:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This article has been waiting for nearly a year at this point and the nominator is still an active Wikipedian, so I'll take a peek.

Thanks ever so much for taking looking over this. I've done my best to resolve your concerns, please see my response to specific points below. --Jonie148 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jonie148: All changes look great! The final quote in the "Themes and cultural references" section needed to be blockquoted as well so I went ahead and did it. The article passes but due to the formatting change I figured I would allot you time to change it if you would like. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@DanielleTH: Brilliant, and thanks for being so prompt! I'd completely forgotten about that quote to be honest, so thanks for the catch - It definitely makes sense for it to be block quoted too. I really appreciate the time you've put in here :) --Jonie148 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA! And thank you so much for being so quick with the changes. Happy to review articles that have been waiting much too long. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Writing

• Plot: I think you wanted em dashes where you had en dashes. I fixed that for you.

Thanks!

• Plot: Rather than linking "father" in the first line of paragraph two, I would change the end of the sentence to "and his father, Kirk Van Houten, fall out" or anything else that names Van Houten. This is to comply with MOS:LINKCLARITY.

Done.

• Reception: One-line paragraphs are discouraged. See if you can find

I've added an additional sentence to the paragraph you refer to.

Verifiability

• The actual references you cite all look rather solid, but my concern is that 2/3 of the article is reliant on six sources, with entire, massive paragraphs coming form just one source. For the sake of verifiability you have to find other sources for those sections to cite as well to prove the information is accurate and to attempt to be as unbiased as possible.

I've added a few additional sources, but the issue here is that there really aren't many available. I've searched really hard, and these are all the reliable ones that I can find.

• The Copyvio/Plagiarism got marked with a "-" but I'm not going to fail this. I chose to do this because you have three incredibly massive quotes and, other than the plot summary, have two paragraphs on the page that aren't all quotes. Shorten the quotes or paraphrase, quoting only what would seem particularly biased. The reception section only has two reviews and could really use additional ones. Also, quotes that long (generally 40+ words) need to be put in a {{blockquote}} template.

Thanks. I've shortened these quotes, and the page now scores much better on the copyvio test. I've also put them in block quotes. Sadly, as with all recent episodes that don't generate press attention, there are no further full reviews of the episode that aren't personal blog entries, and hence no more suitable review sources. I have however found two sources which discuss the opening sequence, so I've added those. I hope that proves acceptable.

Broadness

• This article, besides some notes on cultural references and limited developmental information from the reviews section, this article gives no information on the production of the episode. I understand you are limited by what's available but information about development should really be on an article about a television episode.

Yep, the main issue with the page is (as you point out) the lack of information on its production, and I've been aware of this since I nominated it. Unfortunately, as you also point out, there is a distinct lack of available information on the episode's production altogether. There have been only a handful of episodes of The Simpsons that are unreleased on DVD (and which therefore don't have associated behind the scenes commentaries, etc.) that have reached Good Article status. The only episode of the series that is as recent as 'Dad Behaviour' to attain GA status is The Burns Cage, and the production section there is based on a directly related interview with the writer. To the extent of my knowledge, Ryan Koh hasn't made any public comment on the episode at all. There is a YouTube interview with Matt Leinhart on his role in the episode, so I've added that along with the fact that it was Koh's first writing credit in the show, in addition to it being his inaugural episode as co-executive producer of the series. Sorry; I know a YouTube video isn't an ideal source, but that's the format the interview is in. The question is whether this is enough. I'm aware that this may be an insurmountable obstacle to approval; please do let me know if this is the case.

Neutrality

• What you wrote looks neutral, and the quotes you selected weren't incredibly negative or positive.

Stability

• Article is perfectly stable. No evidence of edit warring.

Images

• One acceptable image. Article is short so this is enough to illustrate it without it getting crowded.

Awaiting your edits/response! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 02:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)