# Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants vs. The Big One

This article is an orphan. Why hasn't anyone given it an orphan tag?66.72.201.14 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an orphan, there are lots of other pages that link here. BOVINEBOY2008 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpongeBob vs. The Big One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll give this one a review later today. Miyagawa (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here goes with the review:
Lead: Typically the lead of television episode follows a basic structure. What you've put in the lead follows that structure although in a different order to how I do them personally - but that's purely a personal taste and I think the order you've used is fine. However there are a couple of points.

I got caught out on this a while back, but you'll need to specify that it was an American production, which means you'll need to reorder the line "... 111th episode of the Nickelodeon animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants.". I would suggest "... 111th episode of the American animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants."  dropping the Nickelodeon as you've mentioned it in the following sentence.
 Done
It would also be good if prior to the episode summary in the lead if there was a brief line describing what the series was for those who aren't familiar with it. I use a similar structure in my Star Trek articles as do the chaps for the X Files, The Office and other shows. Doesn't need to be more than a sentence and then immediately afterwards you'll have "In this episode, SpongeBob and his friends search for Jack Kahuna Laguna...".
added as suggested. Hope it's not that bad or something.
Also, and more for future use than this article as I wouldn't ask you to yank out citations - but you don't need to cite the lead normally unless there is something contentious or a quote.
 Done
Production: 

You mention the air date here and you mention it again in reception. Probably best to semi-merge the two and move the comment about the 10th season anniversary into the reception section and remove the mention of the air date here.
I think there's nothing to do with here. The mention in the reception section was used to specify when was that.
No need for the caps on instant replay.
 Fixed
The Brown Johnson quote - you've managed to lift the phrasing of the quote from the source completely. Please re-write that so that it isn't a copyright infringement (i.e. Nickelodeon animation president Brown Johnson said "....)
 Fixed
Critical response: 

The first inside pulse reference where the author isn't sure if it was released on TV - you can remove that, unless your trying to make the point that the episode was unmemorable.
 Fixed
References:

First off #3 and #6 are the same source. But it also asks - what makes Toonbarn a reliable source?
 Fixed
Similar question, what makes Toonzone a reliable source?
Why? Toon Zone, for me, is one of the best sites about television animation news, etc. The info given was just a press release.
I was more posing the question than saying it wasn't - I occasionally have the same problem with a couple of the Star Trek related sources I use in the episode articles I work on. In this particular instance, as it is a press release then it's fine. In fact, the mere point that they are being sent press releases makes the argument that the studio believes them to be notable enough, which in turn is a sign of the requirement. So I'm happy for it to be included. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, what makes Blogcritics and Your Hub reliable?
Removed Your Hub. I did not removed Blogcritics since, for me (again), the review is significant and should remain. According to their site "Blogcritics is an official Google News source, syndicates content to online editions of newspapers, and has won numerous awards."
That's fine. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources #27 and #36 are the same.
 Fixed
Ok, so let me know once you've had a chance to look at those and I'll swing by for another check. I'll pop the review on hold until then. Miyagawa (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Miyagawa... thank you for taking this article to review! It's a pleasure. Thanks and have a nice day! I hope the article is enough to pass GA standards. Thanks! :) Mediran (t • c) 13:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Great, I think this one now meets all the requirements of a GA and I'm happy for it to pass. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SpongeBob SquarePants vs. The Big One. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223210724/http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/2010awards/2010tvnominees.html to http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/2010awards/2010tvnominees.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)