Talk:Bad Timing (Adventure Time)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bad Timing (Adventure Time)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 17, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
4. For its size of the article body text - the lede intro sect is pretty good. But, per WP:LEAD, I'd like to see at least just a wee tad bit more specifics about Reception info. You did such a great job with that Reception sect -- maybe a couple mentions of specific publications.
5. The two I would suggest to add from Reception to the lede intro sect would be The New Yorker, and the very last sentence of the Reception sect -- which is excellent.

2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout. Checklinks shows all links archived by the Internet Archive and its Wayback Machine = EXCELLENT JOB HERE !!!

3. Broad in coverage?: As the reader I'm not that familiar with the show -- I'm thinking a Background section would be helpful, to provide some context for the reader as to what this show is, who is Princess Bubblegum, etc. This would give some context to ground the reader within the framework of the fictional universe in which the television program takes place. Compare at article, Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, though not necessary to be that well done. A few sourced sentences should be fine.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral tone, matter-of-fact throughout.

5. Stable? Article is stable upon inspection of article talk page and article edit history going all the way back to 2014.

6. Images?: One image, fair use, infobox image, excellent fair use rationale on image page, great job!

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Cirt: Expanded the lead and provided a background section. The latter I gave a hatnote to List of Adventure Time episodes in so that readers can get more detailed descriptions than what I wrote. Thanks for the review! Will try to review, though it's been a while for me. 23W 07:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. This one was quite close to begin with. My thanks to the GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. — Cirt (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)