Talk:The PTA Disbands/GA1

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

I will be reviewing this article. This will be my first GA review, so if other reviewers have any comments about my review and how I may improve, please let me know. --Jameboy (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the GA review. When I review other articles, I look at WP:WIAGA, and when constructing the GA review itself sometimes I like to use the PGAN-style templates to formulate my thoughts. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2009 (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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * --Jameboy (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through the above recommendations point-by-point and made changes to the article in response to these suggestions, noting as such in the edit summaries. In response to point 2a, the funding issues caused problems with the school bus, and admission, but this is a small part of the episode and no further plot detail is necessary here to provide context for the secondary source analysis which follows. Edna is "Ms. Krabappel", it appears the bio at that website is incorrect. Other than that - I believe I have responded to and corrected each of the points above. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to above GA review

All of the points above have now been addressed. This is now a good article. --Jameboy (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GA Pass