Talk:Not All Dogs Go to Heaven/GA1

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

My comments are below. Please address each item line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go...

Lead
 * The episode summary has a lot about the Star Trek part of this episode and little on the atheism angle, but the plot summary lends a lot more weight to the latter than the former. Perhaps it should be reworked a bit?

Plot
 * "...Brian points out to her that if there were truly a loving God, then he..." I think the wikilink to problem of evil borders on original research] and should be removed. To a lesser extent, the same with the [[meaning of life
 * "...n the bedroom of actor Adam West, who appears with Rob Lowe in a live-action scene." Could you more specifically state what West and Lowe do in this scene?

Production
 * "While LeVar Burton appeared as Peter's social worker Vern in "Petarded"." Can you get a source for this? Even if its just allmovie like the other ones...
 * Is there any information that can be added here about why they chose to pursue the atheism angle they did? It just seems like such a huge part of the episode, but it's not mentioned in the production section at all...


 * There is not though the reason might be that Seth MacFarlane the shows creator is an athiest. -- Pedro J. the rookie 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception
 * "Overall, this episode was surprisingly refreshing. The scenes with the Star Trek cast lived up to expectations, and some scenes were actually funnier than one would expect. Meg's journey of seeking acceptance through religion was surprisingly well handled, and taken as a whole, the episode came across as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent outings we've seen this season." I'm not keen on using huge quotes and only huge quotes to summarize somebody's review. Could you paraphrase some of this and only use the best of the quotes...
 * After this big long quote from the IGN guy, all we get from A.V. Club is that it was "boring and formulaic". It reads as if there was less weight given to the A.V. Club guy because you disagreed with him. Could you expand a bit on what he thought of the episode?

I'll put this on hold for now. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those it look better. -- Pedro J. the rookie 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Checklist

 * 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:
 * Nice work! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nice work! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)