I watched Gangs of New York, but admit I only having a passing knowledge of Hanna Barbara's more mainstream creations, so feel free to disown me as a human being, and ignore this review. --Matfen 23:23, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
How good does it look and how well does it read?6.5
The style of a wikipedia film synopsis is well done, if a little elementary in small parts (comes with the territory I suppose).
Congrats, you doesn't not spel gud. However, if you are still uncomfortable about my checking skills, you might want to submit this for proofreading.
There are way too many pointless links. Don't mistake me, Links are good, but only if they are to something relevant, or at least worthwhile and interesting. Don't succumb to the urge to get some blue going in the text for no reason. Do we really need a link to numbers? Or the meaning of Year? There's usually not much need to put a link on verbs either, unless they are quite obscure.
Here's some of my more notable gripes with this article. The pictures are a bit here, there, everywhere with only the left to the right switchovers indicated any form of organisation. I'm sure other members may disagree with me, but I don't feel that the alignment of images has to be religiously alternating. If you feel the formatting will benefit better from placing two images in a row, do it. It helps if you experiment with the preview feature. I've often been surprised by how some unthinkable placement and formatting can turn out really well.
Another part of the my image gripes is how the pictures are relatively small and out of proportion in relation to their captions. If you're worried about the length increasing too much, remember that the caption space widens along with length, effectively removing a few centimetres of lines.
There is quite a bit of a white space problem with this article. I notice at the opening section, you've doublespaced at the top and bottom of it. I guess it's a matter of taste, and you may prefer to keep it this way to overtly separate the contents section properly from the main text. No offence though, but I think it looks kind of crap when you double space at the top. There's a load of whitespace at the bottom as well, which would benefit from a category banner. Even an obvious one like "film" would be fine. People don't usually care about Cats, it just neatens off the article nicely.
Another issue I take (but possibly others wouldn't) is your use of smaller titles, rather than a full section. Fair enough if you feel that this article needs less lines and smaller titles, but your images and whitespace would probably benefit from using full titles.
I'll mention a bit about a cast table in the concept section.
Format-wise; it could be better. But at least you are highly literate.
Well, the concept is sound. I can't quite remember if this was a requested article or if you came up with the concept yourself, but either way, you certainly have the idea. What anchors the idea is a bit of a problem for me, though. Is this a film? A story? To be honest, it acts as a straight film synopsis, rather than an article on the film itself. There's not really an introduction to what it is. The opening section is more of a premise, or dare I say, the first scene, which technically belongs underneath the contents table. Make sure you know what you want out of this article, and then you'll be able to set about creating it more easily. I'm not saying you have to blatantly say in huge bold letters "THIS IS A MASHUP OF HANNA BARBERA CARTOONS AND MARTIN SCORSESE'S GANGS OF NEW YORK". At least set the reader up for what he's going to read, rather than just leave them to gather the concept from the article title and any references you might make in the text. If you decide to go for the film route, a cast table might be nice and help to keep track of which HB characters play which GONY characters.
If I were qualified enough to say so (which I'm not), I feel that there was a lot of untapped parody of both GONY and HB. There just seems to be HB elements crossed with the plot of GONY, and very little satire.
How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier?6
Call me a morbid, clinically depressed sociopath, but I didn't really get too many chuckles from the article. Maybe others who are more enthusiastic about HB cartoons might lol more at it, but personally, I felt it was more like a copied wikipedia page of GONY with the names replaced and a few perversions or character idiosyncracies added.
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?6.5
Well, the images are all relevant and would probably fit the captions. However, some of the captions could be better, and any good ones are ruined by the tiny formatting. The second one is probably my favorite though.