Talk:Maggie Simpson/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. It looks like a very good article. I will list the problems I see below.—Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Some minor prose issues: *"She got her first name from Groening's youngest sister." - It would be better to use another word than "got", like She received her first name, or She was named after Groening's youngest sister - or whatever the case is.
*"After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family got their own series on the Fox Broadcasting Company which debuted December 17, 1989." - another "got" - how about "received" or even "were given"?
*"Maggie is the least seen and heard of in the Simpsons family." - is the least seen and heard in the Simpson family.
*If she is not heard, why is she voiced? You explain in the article that she says some words, but you need to explain in the lead why actors are providing her voice.
*"The Simpsons has a floating timeline in which the characters do not age, and the show is set in the current year, but certain dates have been given although sometimes these dates are contradicted" - ...the show is set in the current year and although certain dates have been given, they are sometimes contradicted?
*"Shortly afterwards, Marge became pregnant with Maggie and not being able to support his family, Homer reapplied for a job..." - Soon Marge became pregnant with Maggie and, unable to support his family, Homer reapplied for a job...?
*"Maggie has performed a number of feats that may lead one to the conclusion that she is a baby genius. - don't use "one" per MoS, if possible - just Maggie has performed a number of feats that suggest she is a baby genius? - or some other wording.
*"equivalent of a hallmark or calling card would be to trip over her clothing and fall..." hallmark or calling card was to trip - FAC editors do not like "would".
*"flow of action around her" and then "easily influenced by what she sees around her" - vary the wording in sentences so close together.
*"Maggie has appeared in a lot of other media relating to The Simpsons. She has appeared in every one..." - vary the wording rather than repeating "had appeared" - also, "a lot of" is not encyclopedic. You could just say "Maggie has appeared in other media relating to ..."
*References - I don't understand some of the references. Some seem to reference other Wikipedia articles, for example references #3 and #4. Wikipedia cannot serve as a source for another Wikipedia article. The source must meet WP:RS which Wikipedia does not.

• Just a small note, they do not reference the articles, they reference the episodes themselves and just include links to the articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  

O.K. Then they should be wikilinked in the article and not show up in the references. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Homer Simpson is a FAC and is referenced just like the Maggie article.

I guess you are right. I checked it out under cite episode. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. I will put the article on hold for you to address these problems. If I see anything else, I will add it. I like the article very much. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You seem to be using a mixed reference style. According to MoS, the whatever style of referencing you choose, you should use it consistently. Choose one style and use it for all references. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, I will fix the stuff I haven't crossed over later today! TheLeftorium 06:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K. A delightful article and thanks to your articles, I have now watched the Simpsons! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you re-check the Role in The Simpsons section? I have made quite a few edits there. I've made some edits to the references too now so I think I've fixed everything. :) TheLeftorium 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks really good. Just a few more nitpicts I hesitate over:

:*"Maggie's equivalent of a hallmark or calling card" - not sure what you mean here, literally a calling card? :*"...a baby character that did not talk and never grew up, but was assigned any emotions that the scene required" - is there a better word than "assigned" - was scripted to show emotions, or some other wording?

• "Jodie Foster is scheduled to voice an adult Maggie in the upcoming season 20 episode of "Four Great Women & A Manicure" - you will have to be sure and update this as it is already fall of 2008.

Will do! ;)

• Should you not use cite book for the Richmond book reference, as the referencing style is supposed to be consistent within an article?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean but I do use the cite book template (check Maggie_Simpson#References)

I may be wrong here, too, but should not <ref name="page 11">[[#Richmond|Richmond]], p. 11</ref> be {{cite book| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url =| doi = | id = | isbn = }} ? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the cite book template should not be in the Notes section if it's in the References section (see Homer Simpson and Abbey Theatre for more examples). TheLeftorium 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I see. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• The two Fair use should be O.K. since you describe the second in the text, although an argument could be made that two are not needed. You can cross that bridge when you come to it.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a comment above. :) TheLeftorium 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations. A very well-written and well-presented GA article! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot! :) I hope you enjoy watching The Simpsons in the future! ;) --TheLeftorium 18:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)