Talk:Web Weirdos/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Grabbing this for a review. I enjoyed this episode a lot when I first saw it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• In the first sentence of the lead's third paragraph, I think the final phrase "according to Moynihan" is awkwardly shoehorned into the ending. I think there could be a way to more seamlessly present this idea to the reader.

• How is "While storyboarding the episode, Castuera focused her attention on physical comedy. Moynihan, on the other hand, concentrated more on the emotional interactions between the characters, having been inspired by a past experience at couple's therapy."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think that works much better. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is the following sentence appropriate for this article (Together with other episodes of Cartoon Network programming, the episodes helped make the network the number one television destination for boys aged 2–11, 6-11, and 9-14 on Monday nights.) as it seems to focus more on the show as a whole rather than this individual episode? You say "the episodes", which implies a greater scope than just the singular episode, so it may be more appropriate for the season article or the series article. Same question applies to the sentence's use later in the article.

• That was a typo I missed. It should read just "episode," in the singular. I've changed it to "this episode" to make this more clear.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense; just wanted to clarify this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the lead's sentence about the episode's critical commentary, you use the word episode twice in close proximity and I would suggest revising for variation. You could substitute the first instance with the episode's name for instance.

• Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest revising the first paragraph of the "Production" section a little more to make it more cohesive as there are a lot of strands of thought, particularly with the last sentences about the parkour scenes. It may be beneficial to either make that into its own paragraph or really connect it better to the rest of the paragraph if that makes any sense. I understand that it is about the work between Castuera and Moynihan, but it does appear somewhat randomly from the rest of the paragraph.

• How does this look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is an improvement; thank you for your response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• If possible, I would recommend revising the second paragraph of the "Reception" section to make it more of a cohesive narrative, as it is currently more of a list of the points made by both reviewers.

• I have split the second paragraph into two—with each dedicated to a specific review. I then tried to make each new paragraph more of a cohesive narrative in and of itself. How does it read/look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think that works much better. Thank you for your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 13 is dead (for me at least) and I would recommend either replacing it or finding it on a website archive if possible.

• Good catch! I have archived it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Final comments

• Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will pass this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Thanks for looking over this. Here are my changes. How do they look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks great; wonderful work on this. ✓ Pass