Talk:Petergeist/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I began to review the article, but I'm afraid there are just too many issues to pass the article or place it on hold for the time being. I am naturally comparing it to "Flaming Moes", which I passed a few days ago. Compared to that article (which is an article on a pre-Internet episode) this one is seriously lacking.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I've begun to list some issues below, but the whole article needs a fairly thorough copyedit. There's informal language, strange linking, typing errors, poor grammar... I'm not saying it's utterly awful, but it's really not hitting GA level. The short paragraphs are also not great; for instance, in the plot section.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I can't help thinking there are a lot more sources out there worth citing.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The sources that are cited are of a good quality.

   C. No original research:

   Third paragraph of the production section lacks any refs.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It goes with the sources really- I'm just guessing there are more things to say concerning the production and references. I appreciate this perhaps isn't the most popular episode, and that does make it harder to produce a high quality article, but that doesn't mean we can lower our standards.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The informal language does compromise the neutrality somewhat in the lead.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Image is a little large

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is just nowhere near ready.

• "from season four of" Link to season article/list?
• Links to go with character names?
• "Indian" is a bit ambiguous. In any case, Native American would be more accurate.
• "As a result, a poltergeist haunts the Griffins' house and spirits drag Stewie away to the other side, followed by even stranger events. ." A bit too adverty. Also double fullstop.
• "started" typo...
• Odd capitalisation in the gueststar section of the infobox.

As I say, the above bullets are by no means the only issue. There's just too much to be done with this article to place it on hold. If, once you've dealt with my comments, you resubmit, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll review it as soon as possible. Alternatively, I understand if you would prefer for another reviewer to take a look, but you would have to wait. I am also happy to offer further advice/explanation regarding this article and this review- again, feel free to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)