Talk:Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * On second thoughts, are we even certain that's the best image? How about a picture from the Land of Chocolate sequence? Or perhaps in the bar? I don't think a picture of two Germans really sums up the episode's plot, message or importance. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * On second thoughts, are we even certain that's the best image? How about a picture from the Land of Chocolate sequence? Or perhaps in the bar? I don't think a picture of two Germans really sums up the episode's plot, message or importance. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * "Mr. Burns" Link to article or character list?
 * Done.
 * (Same applies to the first mention of other characters, locations and the like- the power plant, Homer, etc etc. Helps provide context for those who do not know The Simpsons well. I see you've done this in the plot section, but they would be equally/more useful in the lead.)
 * Done.
 * I'm not certain about the spoilers in the lead- I was under the impression they were generally discouraged. Our guideline doesn't mention it... Consider this merely a thought
 * Agreed. I have removed the spoiler-ish bits.
 * "Homer mopes" Slightly informal?
 * Fixed.
 * "and is resolved to" resolves to?
 * Switched to decides
 * What precisely are "show runners", and why are they mentioned before the writer?
 * Removed.
 * "The title of the episode "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk" was incorrectly named, as the writer simply used a German-English dictionary to translate." More detail? What is it meant to mean, and why is it wrong?
 * Expanded that bit.
 * "there was a two minute scene," Showing what?
 * Fixed.
 * The first paragraph of "production" seems to be just a list of points. There seems to be very little unison.
 * "the Simpsons's economic" I prefer this apostrophe style, but it is not consistent with previous apostrophes in the article.
 * Fixed.
 * "Lenny and Homer" Lenny or Homer
 * Fixed.
 * It's not immediately clear what a "beardline" is.
 * Fixed.
 * "when the Simpsons were shorts" Very odd phrase
 * Fixed.
 * "Tracy Ullman Show" italics?
 * Fixed.
 * This next paragraph also seems to just bounce from point to point, point to point. There's very little structure in the production section's first two paragraphs
 * I took a crack and cleaning the section up.
 * Again, the structure in the "cultural references" section is somewhat lacking
 * "the top seventh" The what?
 * Fixed.
 * "that the bit where" Hardly encyclopedic
 * Fixed.
 * In the refs, I'm really not seeing why the whole of (say) "The Simpsons season 3 DVD commentary for the episode "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk"" needs to be in italics. "The Simpsons season 3 DVD" maybe, but not the rest.
 * It's the way the template is formatted.
 * Then don't use the template? J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Done. -- Scorpion 0422  01:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed your above prose concerns, and fixed the image rationale. In regards to the unreliable sources, I think hey are okay because in this case they are review websites, and are just being used for their reviews, not information. -- Scorpion 0422  00:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The rules for reliable sourcing still stand. I could write a review in my userspace, or start a blog and write reviews for episodes. I don't think anyone is going to care what I think. If they do not meet the guidelines for reliable sources (and could not be considered reliable self-published sources/primary sources), then they should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what makes you think they aren't reliable? All three are well-known DVD review websites, and I don't see why a reviewers that write for them would be any less qualified than, say, a reviewer for any newspaper. -- Scorpion 0422  23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, who are they? I'm sorry, this just isn't how the reliable source guidelines work. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My main question was why do you think the sources don't meet the guidelines? -- Scorpion 0422  00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't prove a negative... I can't see any evidence that they do meet them- IE, that the the websites are anything more than someone's blog. Is there an editorial board? Is it run by professional journalists? Are they spin-off sites from reliable publications like magazines? If you feel the sites are reliable, the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that they are. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * DVD Verdict - Is more than just a blog, with a variety of reviewers
 * DVD Movie Guide - Doesn't offer much information. From what I can tell, it's mainly just one guy, and doesn't have any of his credentials listed, so I guess that one should be removed. It's a shame because it usually has really good, useable quotes.
 * Digitally obsessed - Again, a bunch of reviewers, but the requirements of becoming one aren't much

So I guess the short answer is that I can't really find evidence that the three meet the RS requirements. I suppose I should remove them, although doing so will gut the reception section. -- Scorpion 0422  01:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand the annoyance, but, unless we have reason to consider something reliable, we shouldn't really be using it for such subjective information. Raw data, maybe (date first shown, something like that) but not reviews. J Milburn (talk)
 * Very well, they have been removed. -- Scorpion 0422  02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think there's a problem of just "listing points" in a few paragraphs- they don't flow too well. I feel these need to be cleaned up a little before the article is promoted. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am going to be away until the 30 March. If the issue is dealt with in the mean time, feel free to contact someone else. Either way, leave a note on my talk page and I will get back to you. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Love the new "Land of Chocolate" section, it's well written and is worth being there. The illustration is also very helpful. The prose has been well ironed, and everything seems to be have improved massively. I'm now happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :)  The left orium  13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)