Talk:Bart Gets Hit by a Car/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Notes: I noticed a few areas of improvement but none of them were significant enough to not pass this article. I also checked out and compared this article to the FAs this project has created. I do not think it is up to those standards yet but it certainly is a good article. It touches on important aspects including new characters and rankings. The plot is summarized well. The images and captions are at our standards. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * References
 * Minutes could be added to the DVD commentary citations.
 * Fixed one ref's date to be ISO instead of spelled out.
 * "The DVD Journal" italicizes their name on the website's "about us" page but it does not appear to be in print. Something to consider.
 * The whole plot section is unreferenced. It obviously comes from the episode so or numerous other sources could be used. It could also be added as a single reference while the sources in the current reference section could be turned into notes. However, this is something the project needs to decided on since even some of the FAs have an unsourced Plot sections. It is also all easily verifiable without any changes.
 * Image
 * I believe a cropped version of The Garden of Earthly Delights would be superior. Unfortunately, that article does not have the panel cropped as a whole.
 * I right aligned the image. Having them on the left like that is sometimes OK and sometimes not. In this case, it is not necessary and the shifting of the section header makes it look better adjusted.
 * Other
 * Scare quotes. These seem perfectly acceptable as used here. However, "fee" received just ' while others received ".
 * Non breaking spaces added
 * Changed realizing to realising since the article appears to be in British English. Going to American would make sense to me but I am American so maybe that is why.
 * The FAs in this category have sections that are slightly longer. Comparing this to that is a little unfair but some expansion is needed to go to the next level.
 * Any negative or mediocre reviews might balance out the Reception section but I could not find any from a quick look.
 * Peer reviewer tool mentioned "also" being overused and the lead as being too short. I think both are sufficient for GA.
 * No dead links, disambiguation pages, or flags.