Talk:Legends of Bikini Bottom/GA1

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:OK
• External links:OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: This article has a major problem, it doesn't tell the reader anything about the episodes or the shared viewpoint that is covered in the definition of an "anthology series". I expect a detailed analysis of the five episodes and their viewpoints and differences. I also expect that it would include more on the production and writing. Currently, it reads mostly on the facts of the number of viewers, the air date and the guest stars with no coverage on the episodes themselves. Nancy Basile's comments only make the reader more interested in this missing content, the page just doesn't properly serve the reader to explain the basic context. As someone who has not watched or seen the program, this article has left me very confused and unfulfilled about what is even being discussed. Articles are supposed to be stand alone and have enough context to fill the reader in. I am not asking for a character breakdown or anything over the top, but just an article that approaches it from the angle of no familiarity with the work itself. I see a lot of references to Lost, but I really can't review this properly without some actual context of what it is to go on. Please notify me when you can address these issues. I will place it on hold for a week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no updates to this since the review and I think the amount of work with the other reviews means that I should fail this rather than continue to hold it indefinitely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to fail this. There has been no work for over two weeks and its been a least a week since my last comment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]