Talk:Over the Garden Wall/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I saw no issues with how this was written. I've tweaked a few things myself. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~You have a problem with MOS:PLOT for the same reason as 3B below: the episode descriptions need to be truncated. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
Your changes look sufficient based on other TV plot summaries I've examined. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Twitter and Tumblr shouldn't be used as sources, even if those accounts purport to be from a person who would know (and neither of those accounts are verified). Regardless, neither source supports the content so I'd recommend you remove all of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've since cut the Twitter source and the information it supported. There is no content worth keeping if it's not properly sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
~~The show didn't receive a Reuben Award as the award is for cartoonists, which McHale won. McHale should be listed as nominee. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
Your change fixed this. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
~~There's no immediate evidence of COPYVIO but I'll be looking to see if there's plagiarism. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
I found no plagiarism. Everything used has been quoted. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
This article appropriately keeps some focus on the production and critical reception as well as the soundtrack which accounts for a fair amount of media. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
~~The episode plot summaries are not in keeping with WP:PLOTSUM.~~ I'll WP:AGF on the sources since they're all dead but the summaries are way too long. Even 2 hour-long episodes shouldn't be more deeply described than the plot of the entire series. These things are magnets for WP:FANCRUFT so I recommend keeping them as short as is reasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look sufficient based on other TV plot summaries I've examined. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit warring but there is regular editing. No problems here. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
~~I'm concerned that these are "fair use" images. I'll be looking at the resolution as I'm not sure if these are "low" enough for fair use. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
I'm told these images are within guidelines for fair use. This is the first time I've dealt with it as most articles I review strictly rely on public domain. This was educational. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm placing this on hold so you can address my concerns. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the original research issue outlined in 2C, and have considerably shortened the episode descriptions per 3B. However, even I feel that the descriptions are still rather lengthy. There's a lot of information to digest in the last two episodes of the miniseries, so I'm finding it particularly difficult to significantly shorten the descriptions for those final chapters in the series. In regards to 2B, I replaced the Tumblr citation with a concrete source, though I have not yet found a replacement for the Twitter citation. I know Wikipedia is strict with its sourcing policies, which is an issue for the Twitter source since McHale's account is unverified, but I do find it extremely unlikely, judging by the content, that that is not his account. I suppose that can be taken with a grain of salt though. –Matthew - (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the last couple changes in order to get this off my plate since you seemed squeamish. I looked at a couple FA-nom articles about TV series and their plot summaries were of comparable size. I still think it's too long but without an objective standard I don't want to quibble over it. It's a cartoon; it's not even worth providing unsourced plot summaries, to my mind. I put way more work into this than I wanted to but I'm finding it necessary in order to get the ball moving forward. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]