Talk:Road to ... (Family Guy)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 00:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A few gripes to fix.
   Refs 2-7 could probably be dropped or moved elsewhere. A clump of six refs in the first line of the lead looks a bit too much. The fact being supported is evident enough from the article that you can get away with it as is.
   I'm also not sold on using the ellipses every time you refer to the title - I think when you use phrases like "Road to... episodes", you could drop it and go with "Road to episodes".
   "the episodes were used to showcase special animation" -> "the episodes were used to showcase different animation techniques"
   "Phineas and Ferb" should be italicised.
   "entitled" means "deserving of". You should be using "titled".
   Episode titles should not be in italics, and should have quotation marks around the titles, such as "Brian Goes Back to College". Television series' names should be italicised.
   "As a result, series regular Greg Colton" -> ditch the comma there.
   There's no real sense of uniformity in how to refer to the series. Sometimes it's Road to, others Road to... and sometimes you use quotation marks as well. Any style works but use one throughout.
   "The episode was the first Road show to be produced and broadcast in high-definition, the first to be a full hour" -> "the first to be a full hour long/in length" (either works)
   "In IGN's top ten Stewie and Brian's Greatest Adventures" -> If "top ten" is part of the title, then capitalise it; if not, then replace it with a more explanatory phrase, like "top ten list of Stewie and Brian's Greatest Adventures".

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS seems fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Apart from the over-citation in the first line, the references are grand.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

   Two commons images are fine, but the rationale for File:FGRoadToEurope.jpg needs seeing to. It's an exact copy of the rationale for the relevant episode. You'll need to explain why it's fair use to use it as an example of the series of episodes, and why it stands as a representative image for themes present in several episodes.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Going to stick this on hold for now, until the issues for 1A and 6A are dealt with.

Your concerns have been addressed. Gage (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you removed the image in question - it was fine to keep it, you just needed to rewrite the rationale so it was specific to the article and not a copy of its other use. However, the changes are grand, so I'm ready to pass this one. Well done. GRAPPLE X 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)