Talk:Focus Grill

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Focus Grill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I can't say I've ever heard of this cartoon, but I have reviewed a lot of similar articles.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See below.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Could you talk me through why Digitally Obsessed and The Numbers are reliable?

Digitally Obsessed is a comprehensive DVD review site which has been cited in other episode article GA's, namely those of The Simpsons such as "The Otto Show", "Homer Defined", and "Bart the Murderer". The Numbers is mainly a box office analyzer but apparently also does (well-written and cohesive) reviews. I hope that's enough of a reasoning, though I'm a tad unsure. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, who runs them? Who writes them? Are they professionals? Are they spin-off websites from other reliable publications? They look like sources I'd like to trust, but I'm not sure if they're technically reliable sources Wikipedia-wise. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Digitally Obsessed: This states that their reviewers must meet a series of requirements, including writing prowess, technical requirements, age, and knowledge of their field. Credible news sources citing/reporting on/analyzing it include Ludington Daily News newspaper, 2002, the Herald Journal, 2007 (which cites an interview it did; it's the paragraph opening with the quote "I was the best television director[...]" in the "TV sports pioneer dies at 75" article), among others.

The Numbers is similar to DO's requirements, but has been established longer and has been noted for its availability to industry professionals and investors. More here, which I think sums it up better. Cited by a bunch of newspapers here, and called among the "leading box office tracking websites" by National Ledger. (Again, though, it's mainly a box office website, but apparently also does reviews for DVD's—the relation of the two baffles me, but alas :P) The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can rock with that. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I can't help feel you drift off-topic a little in the production section... In such a short article, it's very noticable.\

Er, how so? The section covers a) the brief crew, and an interesting note about its position as the 52nd episode, then b) the reason behind it being the last episode, c) Small writing it and certain things he kept in mind/analyzed/etc., and finally c) brief bit about the animation in the episode. I don't see any off-topic material there... The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph seems to be about the series generally rather than the episode. I'm sorry I can't give more specific advice- can you see what I'm saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but this is the series finale, so information on why it was canceled is basically essential. Or do you disagree...? The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps open the paragraph by clarifying the relevance... "[writer] knew before writing the episode that it would be the last" or something. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, consider that done. =D The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. 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:

   Could you talk me through why you've chosen that image in particular? It just looks a bit like (what I gather the to be) the three main characters stood together- not the most representative image of this episode in particular.

I mainly picked it because it's both high-quality and demonstrates the characters at a pivotal moment for the show (in which they decide their movies are made specifically for them). I could replace it with a shot of the camera breaking in the final scene, which is actually discussed more in the article. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought- I get the impression from the article that that is the iconic moment. If you feel the current screenshot is better, I am happy to trust your judgement. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It's good, but I can't help feeling there's something a little lacking.

• "Brendon, Melissa, and Jason" is there a character list or something we can link to?
  • They already are linked, at least in the body. Are you referring to the intro or image caption, perhaps? The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The lead- you could link them in the caption if you like, but that may well be overkill. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "he had for" that would be "he had had for", but that whole paragraph is a little odd- I think I see what you're trying to get across, but could you rephrase it?
  • Fixed. Also, what seems a tad odd about it? And by "rephrase", are you referring to "he had had for" or the entire paragraph? The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The entire paragraph- it doesn't read that well. Just try and phrase it differently? J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've reworded/half-rewrote it, should be better now. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Fenton, Junior, Perry, and Walter" Again, links? Not such a big deal if there isn't here, as there is some context.
  • I could link to the character list again, but they don't have any sections on it to actually link to. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • No, that's fine then. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "by the focus group" a bit repetitive.
  • I see what you mean—Fixed. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "not be actually" not actually be
  • Fixed. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "which is run" where it is run
  • Fixed. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "their's" !!!!!
  • Fixed, lol. :P The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not really seeing the need for three paragraphs in the lead.
  • Is it much of a problem? I just think it's better summarized thusly. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I just think it would look better in one or two paragraphs. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I just fear it would be clumped, if you get what I'm saying. Especially with the rewritten version of the second paragraph that stands now. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Promoted. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Focus Grill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://movies.ign.com/articles/566/566928p12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723115322/http://www.shoutfactorystore.com/prod.aspx?pfid=187&sid=EB2DE14BF65A423D969D6DC59F47AC87&nocookie=true to http://www.shoutfactorystore.com/prod.aspx?pfid=187&sid=EB2DE14BF65A423D969D6DC59F47AC87&nocookie=true
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://movies.ign.com/articles/566/566928p6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)