Wikipedia:Peer review/SpongeBob SquarePants (character)/archive1

SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am eventually planning on bringing this to FA status. My eventual goal is to make it TFA the day the next SpongeBob movie premieres. I've been able to bring an article to GA status, but this is my first time getting involved with the FAC process. Any takers?

Thanks, Jerry (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

JerrySa1, I'll take a look, but I'm not that familiar with the criteria, so apologies if my review is rather underwhelming or unhelpful. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 17:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• The lede, specifically the first paragraph, seems a bit short.
• Personally, I think the 'Role in SpongeBob SquarePants' and 'Character' sections should be flipped around, to make more sense chronologically, but that's just my opinion.
• "At work, SpongeBob answers to Eugene Krabs..." In this context, this needs rewording, especially 'answers.
• "...who shows SpongeBob favor..." Same as above, rewording.
• "I think SpongeBob [was] born out of my love of Laurel and Hardy shorts. You've got that kind of idiot-buddy situation – that was a huge influence. SpongeBob was inspired by that kind of character: the Innocent – a la Stan Laurel." The end of this quote is missing a quotation mark.
• "... wearing a red hat with a green base..." What do you mean by 'base'?
• The voice of SpongeBob was originally used by Kenny for a minor background character in Rocko's Modern Life. Does the source say what character it is?
• Nickelodeon needs a link at some point.
• "British Prime Minister Gordon Brown..." Worth clarifying that he's an ex-Prime Minister, and linking to an article about the Prime Minister, for those that are unsure what it is.
• "The tattoo was described by blogger and TV personality Perez Hilton as one of the 'Worst Celebrity Tattoos'." I'd remove this.
• "SpongeBob also inspired vehicle designs." Change to "SpongeBob has also inspired vehicle designs".

That's everything I could find. Feel free to disagree with anything I've put. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Alright, good start to the review. Thanks for taking this on btw, I was expecting no one to take it up... I am also unfamiliar with the criteria for FA (though I'm learning). I would suggest starting by going through the MoS. I would also recommend going over past FA reviews for fictional character articles (the most recent one being the numerous reviews on the Jill Valentine page IIRC. This article is already deserving of the GA criteria obviously enough, though having it pass FA criteria is another story. I *think* that it passes criteria 3 and 4, the ones I'm more concerned with are 1a-1c and 2c. I'm not very good at pointing out this stuff myself, so if you could pick out any errors involving those areas or anything else, that would be great. (For Criteria 1a, nothing is too frivolous from what I've seen of past reviews.) Jerry (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

JerrySa1, I agree with you. 3 and 4 are already satisfied, but for 1a, may I suggest requesting a copy-edit? The Guild of Copy Editors are currently doing a drive, where they copyedit articles. It may be worth placing a request there.

For 1b and 1c, I personally don't see any problems, but if you do, you could go to the reference desk.

I don't see any problems on 2c either.

That's all. Let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 07:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: I don't think you understand...there's more to a PR than just a cursory review of the article. It's usually more in-depth than something like a GA review, and I was requesting a review to ready it for when I bring it up for FAC. Besides that, there's a convention against bringing up an article for a copy-edit while there's already a PR in progress. And I was expecting more than just this. Jerry (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

JerrySa1, you're right. I don't know what I'm doing, to be honest. I just wanted to help reduce the backlog while my own peer review is waiting. Apologies. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: I've waited for some time for a response, so I expect a full review. If you are not familiar with FAC, review the criteria and read a couple of essays relevant to them. Check past reviews of Fictional Character articles which were promoted in the past, etc. I have a limited amount of time to get this article to succeed at review so I can get it to TFA by the time the movie premieres, so I do not have the time to list *another* peer review. Jerry (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

JerrySa1, I'll take at look at citations in the next few days. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 06:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I found, accompanied with photos.

• Ref 2 is unclear as to whose it is.
  • I'm unclear as to what you mean.
    • There are two names on the citation. I'm unsure as to what they mean or represent.

• Ref 9 has no mention of SpongeBob or Hillenburg on the page linked to.
  • Removed it

• Ref 25's link is dead.

• Ref 26's date is incorrect.

• Refs 32 and 33 are the same.
  • Fixed it

• Ref 50 links to the wrong page.

• Ref 52 links to the wrong page.

• Refs 63 and 65 seem awfully similar. Not sure though.
  • Both are kinda iffy, I decided to remove them both, especially since there are already sources for both sentences.

• Some of the refs don't seem reliable, especially ref 73.

• Ref 84's title is different from the source to the citation.

That's everything. Hope that was slightly more aligned with what you desired. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 08:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not answering earlier. Thank you for the thorough look at the references. Hmmm, it seems like CheckLinks missed a couple of dead links, strange. Oh well I've fixed (most of) them. Jerry (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jerry (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Anything else? Jerry (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@JerrySa1: Nothing for me. I'll talk to a few people who may be interested. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

JJE's sourcing concerns

Taking stock of the reference section, I notice a few things that might be a problem at FAC. One, there is a lot of reliance on press releases and news reports and not all of them look reliable at first glance. Conversely, I only see a handful of academic papers and not a single book even though Google Scholar throws up a lot of publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete's take on the lead section

The lead section of this article needs work, and I will focus on that section. See WP:LEAD for general guidance on how to write a good lead section. Especially, note that it should "stand on its own." Given the dissonance, in my view, between the proposer's ambition of bringing this to FA, and the current state of the lead section, I did not continue in my review past the lead. I expect the issues I comment on here would generally apply to the rest of the article, but I'll leave it to others to dig in deeper. If I had been the GA reviewer, I would have encouraged the proposer to consider the lead more carefully in relation to GA criterion 1b; as it's written, I don't agree with the GA assessment, so I'd say there is a ways to go before an FA nomination.

I find it straightforward to identify several things that should be removed from the lead section. But I'm not advocating that the lead should be shortened overall. Determining what to add is a more challenging project, requiring greater familiarity with the subject matter than I have. I'd encourage the proposer to consider the comments here and work on a new version of it.

Just as with the overall article, it's important consider the structure and weight of the lead section. If a fact is included in the lead section, it must be more significant than facts that are not included; and that significance must be made apparent to the reader. For instance, the fact that the title character of a TV series appeared in the series' pilot episode is utterly unsurprising. That fact need not be mentioned in the article at all, so I find it problematic to encounter it in the article's second sentence.

Is there something noteworthy or interesting about the creator's past work? Was major/award-winning work, or is there a thematic connection to the new series that gives insight into the creator's broad vision or ambitions? If that exists, it should be explained briefly; if not, the past work need not be mentioned in the lead section. If, e.g., the creator identified a social goal, that would be worth noting ere. Maybe the creator stated in an interview that he wanted to help young boys develop an ability to talk about their emotions through observing a relatable role model. If the ambition is just to create a show about a sea sponge, that's basically a tautology...he wanted to create a show about a sea sponge, and surprise, he created a show about a sea sponge. Uninteresting, does not belong in the lead.

It's not unusual that a popular TV show should be involved in controversy, so as a bare fact that's not worthy of the lead section. If the controversy can be briefly summarized, though, that would convey useful information to the reader, and give them an incentive to read the rest of the article to better understand. One controversy is mentioned, but no context is provided. The reader will be unsure: Is the one item of controversy mentioned (Dobson) the only way in which it's been controversial? Or the most significant? Or simply one of many?

One comment about process: I see that the proposer stated above "I've waited for some time for a response, so I expect a full review." It is not reasonable to expect any individual volunteer to do any particular thing, especially if no explicit commitment has been made. Nowhere that I see did Thatoneweirdwikier commit to doing the entire peer review; on the contrary, they expressly stated in their first comment that they are not yet very familiar with the criteria. As the proposer, you are not obligated to pay much attention to a review you find unhelpful, but there's no reason to badger the reviewer just because you want something different than they provided. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Initial pass from Ceranthor

Lead

• "The character's name is derived from "Bob the Sponge", the host of Hillenburg's comic strip The Intertidal Zone that he originally drew in the 1980s while teaching marine biology to visitors of the Ocean Institute." - wordy sentence with a lot of ideas. Suggest cutting into two sentences.
• "SpongeBob is a naïve and goofy sponge who works as a fry cook at the Krusty Krab." - Provide a tiny bit more description of the Krusty Krab. Also, an odd sentence to end the paragraph; disrupts the flow a bit.
• I think there should be a little more focus on Spongebob's character than the lead currently includes. Not too much because it's a fairly short article, but definitely more than what's there now.
• "SpongeBob appeared in a We Are Family Foundation video promoting tolerance" - tolerance of what, exactly? Too vague.
• "which was criticized by James Dobson of Focus on the Family because of the foundation's link to homosexuality." - seems a bit specific for the lead since I've no idea who this person or the foundation are - better to just generally say "which was criticized by conservative social groups" or something along those lines.
• Agree with Pete's assessment that the lead needs substantial work, but I think tightening up the article usually helps focus the lead down the line. ceranthor 00:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Role

• "SpongeBob is a good-natured, naive, and enthusiastic sea sponge (specifically a yellow tube sponge, according to The SpongeBob Musical).[2]" - parenthetical, as it's written, seems crufty. I'd just fuse the parenthetical note into the sentence as "is a good-naturated... and enthusiastic yellow tube sea sponge". You don't need to note the Musical explicitly; providing that source or adding a footnote should be fine.
• "He resides in the undersea city of Bikini Bottom alongside an array of anthropomorphic aquatic creatures." - The alliteration here is a bit sing-songy, and not really suited to encyclopedic writing. Would rephrase as something more prosaic like "Bikini Bottom with other anthromorphic aquatic creatures"
• "to which he is obsessively attached.[3]" - knowing the show I'm not sure that's how I'd describe it. I'd probably start a new sentence and explicitly explain how Spongebob is obsessed with the restaurant
• "SpongeBob's boss is Eugene Krabs, a greedy (though good-hearted) crab who treats SpongeBob like a son,[4] alongside his ill-tempered, snobbish next-door neighbor Squidward Tentacles." - Remove the parenthetical as I don't think it adds anything since you already say he treats Spongebob like a son. The part of the sentence after "alongside" doesn't match the first half; I suspect it's an artifact of an old sentence but either way it doesn't work grammatically.
• "His hobbies include fishing jellyfish, practicing karate under his sensei and friend Sandy Cheeks,[5] and blowing bubbles.[6]" - Pronoun here could be a bit confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the show, so I'd change "His hobbies" to "Spongebob's hobbies"
• You explain that Mr. Krabs is a crab but don't specify what animals all the other characters are.
• "he believes that Squidward Tentacles enjoys his company even though he clearly harbors an intense dislike for him (though they have been shown to get along on rare occasions).[7]" - again, the pronouns get confusing here I think; would change "even though he clearly harbors" to "even though Squidward clearly harbors"
• "He lives in a submerged pineapple with his pet snail Gary." - This comes abruptly and doesn't flow with the previous sentence super well; also I think you should cite the source where this came from

Character

• "Also at a young age, he began developing his artistic abilities. " - He began developing his artistic abilities at a young age" sounds so much better
• "He planned to return to college eventually to pursue a master's degree in art. " - Well he wouldn't be returning to college then, he'd be going to graduate school
• After graduating in 1984 - from where?
• "Olson liked the idea and suggested Hillenburg create a series of marine animals. " - I think you mean a series "about" marine animals
• "It spurred his decision to create SpongeBob SquarePants and said, "It was the inspiration for the show".[9]" - What do you mean by it? Olson making a comment?
• "For the show characters," - should be "show's characters"
• "At the time, Hillenburg knew that "everybody was doing buddy shows"—like The Ren & Stimpy Show—and thought that 'I can't do a buddy show,'" - wordy and not sure about the use of "thought" here; maybe another verb or just rephrasing the quote in your own words?
• "Hillenburg had made several "horrible impersonations" - How would they be impersonations before he had even finished developing the character? Not sure I follow
• "The decision to have SpongeBob attend a boat driving school was made due to a request from Nickelodeon that the character attends some sort of school.[22]" - tense switching here, be careful with that
• "He said that to Nickelodeon; however, the network said, "Well, let's just listen to 100 more people." " - citation? And suggest changing "said that to Nickelodeon" since it's not super encyclopedic in tone
• "He described it that "It's like erosion: a very slow process. As time goes on, you need to bring him to different places and more places, the more stories and scripts you do."[24] " - "that" doesn't work in this context, maybe "described it as"?

I don't want to delve too much deeper into the article yet because I think this article needs a fair amount of work on prose/organization before it's ready to be nominated at FAC. I'm happy to continue providing more comments once these are addressed. ceranthor 00:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses so far, I've been going through them today. For Pete Forsyth I hope that the changes I have made to the lede so far are satisfactory enough. And as for Ceranthor, I would like to see what else you have to say about the rest of the article as I'm going through the points you've brought up for the first three sections. Thanks, Jerry (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you have made some good efforts in the lead. Let me know if you'd like further detail on any of my points, and good luck in your efforts with the article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm mostly unsure about your points about whether the lede "stands on its own", and if it gives undue weight when compared to the rest of the article. I think I've fixed the issue of the issue of the controversy surrounding the character. I felt it should be kept in since there is already a section which covers it, there is a fair amount of coverage of SpongeBob's sexuality, and it caused a fair amount of controversy.Jerry (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a quick stab at a rewrite to address some of the issues I named. Take a look. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Peteforsyth Alright I've made some edits to the lede, I hope they're OK enough. Is there anything else which might come up at FAC that I should know about? Jerry (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)