Talk:Old Money (The Simpsons)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey, I'm going to try and review this following the rules for GA reviews at Good Article criteria. I'll leave comments on my review as I go along, feel free to repond to my comments under each one and remember to sign each response.Rudy 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
At a glance[edit]
After a quick overview the article doesn't seem to fall into "quick-fail" criteria. Rudy 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Coverage[edit]
- Doesn't seem to be anything obvious that isn't covered and no unnecessary deviations from topic. Rudy 15:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Structure[edit]
- Structure flows well and conforms with other articles about Simpson episodes. Rudy 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Prose[edit]
- Prose seems ok, no problems when I ran a spell check, but I think there were a couple of things that could be phrased better. I'll flag them as I go through the individual sections. Rudy 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Plot[edit]
Paragraph 1[edit]
- Line 1 - No need for a comma after Grampa
- Line 2 - "They go on a date and fall in love, leading up to her birthday on a Sunday." Doesn't really make sense. Don't know if you cut something out there. Maybe it would be better as "They go on a date, falling in love and Grampa learns it is to be her birthday soon" or something of the sort.
- Line 6 - Repetition of "car". End the sentence with just "trapping the family overnight.".
- Line 8 - I'm no English teacher, but the sentence "Bea has died of a burst ventricle" doesn't sound right, maybe it should be "had" instead of "has", I can be swayed either way if you think it's correct, hardly a major problem.
Paragraph 2[edit]
- Line 3 - "the" needs to be placed between "spend money".
- Line 7 and 9 - No need for commas before conjunctions "but" and "and". You really seem to love commas by the way (so do I lol), there's quite a few needless ones dotted about but seems a bit too pedantic to go changing them all. Rudy 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Production[edit]
Paragraph 1[edit]
- Nothing wrong here.
Paragraph 2[edit]
- Line 4 - Inconsistency, you have it as "The Simpsons" throughout and then have it as just "Simpsons" here, typo maybe?
- Line 7 - "was" needed in sentence fragment "because she very sweet". Also if this is a quote it'll need quotation marks. Rudy 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Cultural references[edit]
- Line 5 - Typo "evntually".
- As far as prose goes, this paragraph isn't very good. It stops and starts with no continuous flow and is more of a list in paragraph form. Saying that though, I checked with a few Featured Articles in the same scope such as Lisa the Skeptic and this seems to be a common trait, so it can stand. Rudy 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Reception[edit]
- Had an issue here with need to name drop the book since it should be in the cite provided. Got a bit confused and then realised that the website the cite links to is just a representation of what's in the book. I'll let it stand but it might be something that needs addressing down the line.
- The rest of that paragraph relies too heavily on one quote, it makes up half the paragraph! I've had a think about this and I'm afraid your only solution might be to cut it short. I don't particularly like the idea of shortening the paragraph as it's a good size as it is and cutting bits out of it might make it look small and therefore irrelevant. I thought maybe you could use part of the quote and then expand on it in your own words but this would be probably be a bad idea. I think your best bet is cutting it down for now and then trying to find a different opinion to get quotes from so that you can beef up the paragraph later. Cut the quote down to something of this order - "this episode is the crummiest episode of season two... It included a few funny moments. However, it became inundated with sentiment and it did little to leaven that tide."
Links[edit]
- Links used where needed.
References[edit]
No link rot... Just a question before I mark it ok, reference number 6... Is there a URL missing here, if not, is there an issue number that needs to be referenced or is the date enough? Rudy 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- No URL is needed. It's just like referencing a book. TheLeftorium 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Rudy 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
- Good, concise, enticing.
Use of images[edit]
Conclusion[edit]
Overall a very good article and one that I will be using as a familiar bench mark from now on. A few very minor problems that needed sorting out but apart from that well done, particularly in the way you've written the article in an unbiased form. Make the changes and I'll be back later tonight to pass it. Rudy 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! :) I think I have addressed all of your concerns. TheLeftorium 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)