Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants season 9/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I will be reviewing this article. I will try to get this wrapped up in a timely manner.

@Figfires: Thank you so much! AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I did not see spelling mistakes when I went through. The Grammar and flow issues I pointed out have since been corrected so it passes this section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with guidelines for lead sections, layout, fiction, and list incorporation. There was an instance of puffery, but that was removed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Complies with the layout guideline. Over 100 references are on the list which is a decent size given the amount of content present. Originally, there were many repetitive references that bloated out multiple sections, but that was fixed by the nominator so this passes 2a.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most of the references are from reliable news sources and/or statistic sites. I don't know about all the sources so I am not exactly qualified on that front, but someone should probably review the references to make sure they are all reliable. From what I saw, most of the references are coming from reputable newspapers, TVGuide, etc... and can be relied upon to backup the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research was present in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I ran the entire article through a plagiarism checker and came back with 0 hits (other than wikipedia of course). There is nothing else in the article that would warrant a copyright violation other than the media which I have already checked. So... there are no plagiarism or copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of season 9... The production, cast, reception, episodes, and release are all mentioned in sufficient detail.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The production section is very bloated and contains unnecessary amounts of detail. There is an excessive level of direct quotes which is not required. This needs to follow summary style as the article is not about just the production. Please use season 8's article as an example of what summary style is going forward. I have removed the bloatedness somewhat, but additional fixes may be required.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Does not have much editorial bias and it written in a pretty neutral tone. The article is written like an encyclopedic entry and not a tabloid issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pretty stable, no recent edit warring. Have been some minor disputes and vandalism, but other than that, the article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images either have a fair use rationale or copyright permission from the owner.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images in the text itself have suitable captions describing them and are relevant to the topic as the featured individuals were guest cast members.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this article was ready for a review and did not require an extreme amount of corrections in order to fix the issues I saw. This article has passed the Good Article Review

Documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

Usage

Flow Issues

Production

'Series creator Stephen Hillenburg executive produces the show.' this does not flow well. This sentence in particular would flow better as "Series creator Stephen Hillenburg produces the show." or "Series creator Stephen Hillenburg is the executive producer of the show."

'Paul Tibbitt, who worked on the show from its inception until he departed the show at the end of this season, also executive produced the show alongside Hillenburg from season 5 until his departure.' The bold portion does not flow well. It could be written as "also produced the show alongside Hillenburg" or "also was an executive producer alongside Hillenburg".

Recommended Corrections

Production

'The animation was handled in South Korea at Rough Draft Studios.' That just sounds strange in my opinion. I feel it would be much better as "The animation took place in South Korea at Rough Draft Studios."

'The animators pushed the animation to make it funnier and the theme song changed.' Again, sounds quite strange. Could be rewritten as "The animators pushed to make the animation funnier and changed the theme song changed."

Cast

'Other members of the cast were Clancy Brown as Mr. Krabs, a miserly crab obsessed with money and SpongeBob's boss at the Krusty Krab' Could be rewritten as 'a miserly crab obsessed with money who's SpongeBob's boss at the Krusty Krab'

In-line References

I am concerned about some areas where there are too many references on a single sentence. There is no reason to have more than 2 or 3 on a sentence. Yes, references are needed, but too many just bloats it out and makes it difficult to read.

---

@Figfires: Done AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I will add more items as I read through the sections. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Figfires: Done, while multiple references are ok, they did make the prose bloat out. Thanks. Ready for the next batch. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The above documentation is transcluded from Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants season 9/GA1/doc. (edit | history)

@Figfires: Thank you so much! I appreciate it a ton. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)