Talk:Lisa Gets an "A"/GA1

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7(Talk) 00:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It might take me a couple days. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or not! :)
 * I'll see what I can get done in the free time I have. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

 * "that she failed to study for" - for which she fails to study
 * I think "is subsequently" can be replaced by "becomes."

Plot

 * "After yet another" --> "After a"
 * Strike "in his words".
 * Exchange "titled" for "named"
 * "flavors of" --> flavors at
 * "which ultimately results in her getting a cold" --> which ultimately causes her to catch a cold
 * " by Ralph, even faking" --> by Ralph. She even fakes the
 * "while the rest of the family looks on." - What does this mean?

Production

 * "and the third act took a long time to come up with" --> and it took a long time to come up with the third act
 * The Eatie Gourmet's part doesn't tie well into the article. Can you explain how it fits into the plot?
 * The Simpsons trip to Eatie Gourmet's sets up both the main plot and the subplot, so I think it's relevant enough. Queenieacoustic (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for the clarification! --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Themes/Cultural refs

 * "she will fail the test she has not studied to. " - Can you deal away with the hanging preposition?

Home reception

 * "memorable," however "the" --> memorable," although "the
 * As for the review thing, it is probably more accurate to say "mostly positive."
 * You said "eh" instead of "he" somewhere.

Criterion 2 (all stuff cited, controversial stuff cited, ref section/unlined citations exist, NOR)

 * Cite the Catholic League mention that is in the lead.
 * Cite the viewer statistics in the lead.
 * Again, since the two above are already cited in the article, I don't understand why they have to be cited again in the Lead? Queenieacoustic (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistics and controversial material are, according to the GA criteria, meant to be cited. The lead is the first place where readers see this information, which is why I ask of it—I know it's been cited elsewhere in the article—but just because it is so doesn't change the fact that there was controversy and that there is a statistic. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cite the quote in the quote box.
 * I couldn't find a reference to the episode in ref 13.

Criterion 3 (main topics covered; no unnecessary detail)
Seems alright here.

Criterion 4 (no undue weight)
Agree.

Criterion 5 (stable)
Looks as it is so.

Criterion 6 (images have listed copyright status and relevant captions)
Seems all set.

Overall comments
Congratulations on yet another one. :) As before, just a few tweaks, and this one will be ready too! --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for another thorough review! I've answered the majority of your concerns, but there are a few that I'm a bit skeptical about. Thanks again for the review! Queenieacoustic (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the remaining questions and comments you've had. Hopefully that should help clarify the rest. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just added the citation. Thanks for the clarification! Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. :)
 * I'll pass the article in a sec... --Starstriker7(Talk) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)