Talk:Rabbot

Rabbot was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 14, 2010	Articles for deletion	No consensus
September 9, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 26, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Cartoon Network Low‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Animation: American Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Matthew RD 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to quick-fail this article for GA, due to point 2 in the GA criteria; it is not Facutally accurate and verifiable, the production section is largely unsourced. Feel free to renominate it after this issue has been addressed. Thank you. -- Matthew RD 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rabbot/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: No issues.
Plot: No issues.

Something I noticed immediately with the references once I got to the Production section is that some references are placed inside the end of sentence punctuation, and some outside. Personally I think that they should be placed following the punctuation points - you just need to pick one way of doing it and make sure all the references are the same.

It is also expected that all questionable points should be cited, with a minimum of a cite at the end of a paragraph - additionally any quotes need to have a citation directly following them.

Production: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 need citations at the end to cover everything. Paragraph 3 needs a full stop at the end. "This episode does not feature any guest appearances." needs to be merged into another paragraph as its too short to be on its own. "didn't want to air a show about food just going around and doing random stuff" needs a citation directly following it.

Stealth pilot: Only the first sentence is cited.

Reception: Needs more reviews to be included in order to provide balance.

Home release: There's some uncited lines here too.

References: All references need to be formatted the same, including data formats. boards.adultswim.com isn't a reliable source.

Given the issues remaining on this article, I'm afraid I'm going to give it another quick fail. Once you've worked through the list above and expanded the Reception section, feel free to resubmit. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

good job[edit]

Even though the GA was denied, Grapesoda22 has really done a good job on this! --Mjpresson (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rabbot/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 12:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead need more detail about the production and the reception.
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.
	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).	IMDb is not an reliable source. It has many tags like "unreliable source?" and "citation needed", fix theme all.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fan reviews should not be included. TV.com review can't be included as it not and professional review. Same is the case with IMDb
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Need some more professional reviews.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Will wait for some time for the issues to be solved. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply] 10 days have passed and issues have been not addressed till now. Sorry but this nom is failed.

I hate to barge into this GA review, but the prose is rather substandard. I'll help out a little, but the entire article needs a rather significant copyedit from top to bottom. –MuZemike 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also quite a bit of stuff that are either coming from user-generated information (which are inherently unreliable to use as sources) or are otherwise not in the citations given, which I have tagged as such. The citations and the date formatting in them also need to be consistent, i.e. use the {{citation}}-series templates for all the references and not some. Finally, File:ATHF Rabbot.jpg has a very poor non-free use rationale attached to it and needs to be strengthened a bit. –MuZemike 05:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]