# Talk:It's a SpongeBob Christmas!

This review is transcluded from Talk:It's a SpongeBob Christmas!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Neelix (talk · contribs) 22:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Paragraphs should be at least three sentences long. The lead should not include any information that is not also included in the body. The article also needs to be copyedited for grammar and punctuation errors. For example, there should not be brackets around the sentence starting "Nickelodeon and CBS...". This sentence would be better linked to the previous sentence by way of a semicolon. "This" is vague when used as a pronoun. The sentence starting "This is the second..." should be rephrased to make "This" a determiner. "Christmas based" qualifies "episode" and should therefore read "Christmas-based". Alternatively, the word "based" can simply be removed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
This article has referencing problems. For example, Vimeo is not a reliable source. Wired should be italicized and internally linked, as should San Francisco Chronicle. No dates are given for the references other than the access dates. The nick-asia link is dead.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article needs more content. For example, the "Trailer" and "Critical response" sections should be expanded. Almost all of the citations are used only once in the article. Surely more information can be drawn from these sources.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article is uniformly positive in its estimation of the episode when it should include the negatives as well. For example, there are no negative reviews in the "Critical response" section. Subjective adjectives like "strong" should be removed. The Dawson quotation is too long; a quotation should not take up an entire paragraph.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The article is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
There are no image problems.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I had an issue of Entertainment Weekly, and in the "What to Watch" section for that week it had this episode and gave it a B-, saying something the lines of "only die-hard SpongeBob fans and eight-year-olds would find this truly amusing". This would throw a serious clash to the "generally positive" critical response section, and so I feel it deserves merit. However, since then I have thrown out the issue, trying to clean it up, and not knowing that this could be useful. This is only in the print version. Does anybody, by chance, have the issue to get the exact wording, not to mention the exact reference? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)