Talk:The Burns Cage/GA1

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

Reviewer: 97198 (talk · contribs) 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions to improve the article:
 * Lead
 * "Critical reception was mixed." — maybe replace the full-stop (period) with a colon to avoid having a very short sentence
 * "Praise went for the emotionally touching aspects of LaZebnik's script" — "praise went for" is awkward wording, "praise was given to" is better though still a bit clunky
 * "International media covered the episode" — "The episode was covered by international media"
 * ✅ &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Plot
 * "Julio's neck massage snaps Smithers out of his bad mood" — "a neck massage from Julio" flows better
 * "Milhouse enlists the bullies to beat up Jack, but instead Jack beats the bullies up" — can you change one instance of "beat up" to avoid repetition?
 * "but at the end it is revealed that Milhouse was actually Jack in disguise" — this should be reworded to clarify that Jack was playing the role in disguise as Milhouse (I assume that's what it means)
 * "Smithers lectures him that romantic setbacks make love feel better" — I don't think "lectures ... that" is grammatical
 * Why is there a reference at the end of the second paragraph?
 * I put the references for when I listed the article for DYK. Often, users want there to be a reference in every section. I can remove the inlines if that's preferable now. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

✅
 * Production
 * The first two paragraphs can be combined to avoid a one-sentence paragraph


 * Cultural references
 * "In the chalkboard gag" — maybe "In the chalkboard gag in the opening sequence" for readers who aren't familiar with the show
 * The third paragraph contains many short and disjointed sentences — can you try combining some of them?


 * Reception
 * The first paragraph about ratings is a single and very wordy sentence! Please break it up for easier reading
 * "but despite this, was the least-watched episode of the show in terms of total viewers and its 18–49 rating since the previous season's "My Fare Lady" (with a 1.1 rating and 2.67 million viewers)" — firstly, this appears to be WP:OR since the reference does not draw any comparison between the episodes. Secondly, "My Fare Lady" actually had a higher rating and viewer count so the statement is inaccurate. I would recommend removing this clause
 * "rendering it the least-watched episode of the show, in its entirety, in those two demographics" — this is a big claim (the least-watched episode in 27 seasons!) so should be referenced
 * This material wasn't in the article when I listed it. I've now listened to your suggestions. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph is basically a block quote from Perkins' review — can you paraphrase some of it?
 * Done. Again, I remember paraphrasing it before, but some other user must have been adamant to have copy and paste &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "the school's production of Casablanca was a letdown" — replace "a letdown" with "disappointing"
 * ✅&#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

✅
 * References
 * Ref #15 should include a |language= parameter
 * Refs #16 and 17 should include a |work= parameter


 * Images
 * All are free with suitable captions

All in all, there's not too much to be done to fix the article up. I think the biggest issue, apart from cleaning up the wording in a few places, is the information about the ratings in the Reception section. I'll have this review page on my watchlist so I will see any replies you make. 97198 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've followed through with your suggestions &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast! All of the changes you've made look good to me. The citations in the plot summary aren't strictly necessary, but there's no harm in having them there. As far as I'm concerned the article passes all of the GA criteria so I will go ahead and promote it. Well done. 97198 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)