Talk:New Kidney in Town/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010   talk  03:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review the article sometime in the next day or two. Ruby2010  talk  03:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:

Comments:
 * The plot needs some work that it flows better. For instance, He collapses. It is kidney failure and Peter needs a new one. sounds awkward. How about: He collapses from kidney failure, and is told he needs a new kidney.
 * Done. Gage (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the plot section, all the characters need links to their own articles (Peter, Lois etc).
 * Done. Gage (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The production section could be expanded a little, but I understand appropriate content is sometimes difficult to find.
 * I've added as much existing information that I could possibly add, and believe it is sufficient. Gage (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After becoming Jaundiced, Peter says he "feels like he can go on for another 20 years" referencing The Simpsons long run and their trademark yellow skin. Needs a reference.
 * I've removed the statement. It was added by someone else, and I believe it is completely original research. I doesn't belong in the article. Gage (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Reception section only contains reviews from two critics. Find a few more please.
 * I've added the only other review from a reliable source that is available, and I believe the section is now more than sufficient in its coverage of reception of the episode. Gage (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the review on hold for seven days while you look through my comments. Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It all looks good. Pass for GA. Great work! Ruby2010   talk  03:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)