Talk:Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone/GA2

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a review posted here shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis, the review is below. As you might have suspected, the main thing to look at is the article's length and whether its coverage is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis, I opened this up to see where it was at, and it looks like you've addressed everything. I'll mark it as a good article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, thanks! I'll probably do a little more work on it yet but I do think I hit all the points you mentioned at least somewhat, and if you're satisfied it meets GA criteria then I'm happy. Thanks for the thorough review! —⁠Collin^{t c} 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

I suggest reorganizing the lead. The thing that makes the episode notable—the same-sex marriage—should probably be first mentioned no later than the second sentence. It might flow better if you sort it by topic, so that the first paragraph details its real world notability, and then the second paragraph can be a 2–4 sentence summary of the plot.
when suddenly he and Patty appear – "suddenly" doesn't add anything and can be removed.
they slip a note purporting to be from Mr. Ratburn – This should specify that it was a romantic poem.
"broadcast" is a better heading for a TV episode than "release"
I know that this is in part an effect of the limited information, but try to avoid 1–2 sentence paragraphs.
though not the first appearance of gay characters in an Arthur property. A 2005 episode of the spinoff show – It would be clearer if there was one sentence about Arthur and then one sentence about Postcards from Buster.
Given how short the section is, the "censorship" subheading probably isn't necessary.

Verifiable with no original research

Metro is considered to be generally unreliable. The claim it supports either needs a more reliable source, or it should be removed.

Spotchecks:

Frank – Good.
Crain – In its first use, it only seems to support the premiere date. That whole sentence can just be cited by Rotten Tomatoes. Otherwise good.
Aviles – Good.

Broad in its coverage

This is the one we'll need to look at more closely. While a GA isn't required to be comprehensive, shorter articles are generally expected to either be expanded or to already cover everything in the sources. To start, I suggest really mining the sources that are in the article to get everything you can out of them.

A few ideas for things to look for:

Production: Who else worked on this episode besides Hirsch and Lynch? When and how did they decide to have Mr. Ratburn get married and to feature a same-sex marriage?
Themes: If possible, the article could cover how it addresses same-sex marriage in more detail, and elaborate on any lessons that the characters learned. Maybe some coverage of recent developments in same-sex representation on television, specifically developments mentioned in articles about this episode.
Reception: Have any other critics talked about this episode? Did any organizations address it besides GLAAD and these specific religious organizations? Is there any information about how many people watched its premiere?

I looked through a few sources, and these are the ones I found that seem to have useful info:

How Social Movements (Sometimes) Matter
How a Gay Character on Arthur Reflects Changing Norms in the U.S. – The Atlantic
‘Arthur’ Opens Season With a Same-Sex Wedding and a Cake – The New York Times

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight, and the article does not present its own opinions.

Stable

No disputes.

Illustrated

The picture is relevant and it has a non-free use rationale. If possible, it might be worth rewording the caption so it conveys the same idea without being so wordy.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.