- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Kept All raised issues have been dealt with and the article can be kept as Good AIRcorn (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This series has a new season, which has a completely different setting/characters than the first. I would like a reassessment to make sure this page maintains it GA status, or needs editing for length/navigability. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you notified the major contributors and wikiprojects that you have started a reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, including the person who approved the original GA. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length is fine (it uses summary style well in the cast section) and it appears pretty good in terms of navigating too. Nothing else is jumping out at me. Unless there is something more specific that you think needs fixing I say it still meets the GA standards. AIRcorn (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, we worked on it last week to make it more readable and navigable, putting all the seasonal stuff with their respective pages. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article there seems to be no major problems with the introduction of the second season, however 2 points:
- "The second season premiered on October 17, 2012." - why does that simple statement need 2 sources? (suggest to pick only the better one for lead and main text).
- "The second season's opening sequence will be different but done by the same creative team." - should be changed to present tense. Check other remainders of "old" 2nd season predictions throughout.
Except of those minor points i found no glaring issues. Keep after final cleanup. GermanJoe (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the above recommendations, keeping an eye out for others. Thanks for the reviews. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]