Talk:The Real Housewives of Fat Tony/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sanders11 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I will be reviewing this article for you. I've had a quick skim through it and it seems in decent shape so will now commence with a full review. I haven't seen the episode in question, so may require some additional help. Sanders11 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Comments below
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Lots of issues here, particularly in Cultural references
 * 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:
 * I think undue weight is given to one critic
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead
 * Should be a comma preceeding Selma
 * "strong feelings" is a bit vague, is it love, hate, anger? Could you clarify that please
 * "strong love feelings" isn't the best way to put it, how about "who falls in love with mobster Fat Tony"?
 * "strong love feelings" isn't the best way to put it, how about "who falls in love with mobster Fat Tony"?
 * "strong love feelings" isn't the best way to put it, how about "who falls in love with mobster Fat Tony"?


 * Link Fat Tony
 * You've linked the second appearance not the first
 * You've linked the second appearance not the first


 * Is ritzy slang? I'm not sure it is even necessary, glamourous covers it
 * ✅ Removed
 * I thought it was spelt glamorous in US English?
 * You haven't changed it, is glamourous an acceptable variation in US English?
 * Oups, but it is spelled like that.
 * Oups, but it is spelled like that.


 * agrees -> agree
 * "marriage arrangement" - again not very clear
 * ✅ just marriage
 * "Tension later rises between Marge and Selma in regards to Selma's marriage" -> Perhaps "The marriage leads to tension between Marge and Selma"?
 * Later is used in two consecutive sentences
 * Could not find.
 * My mistake there is a sentence in between - was referring to "Selma later ... Fat Tony later" being a little repetitive, but it's a minor point
 * Okay, so will you strike it?
 * My mistake there is a sentence in between - was referring to "Selma later ... Fat Tony later" being a little repetitive, but it's a minor point
 * Okay, so will you strike it?


 * Should you say "over" x amount of viewers? Surely it should be something like an estimated x viewers?
 * You haven't changed it
 * Changed to an estimate of over X...
 * The source doesn't say over, it just gives a figure
 * Removed. ✅
 * Removed. ✅


 * See my comments on the reception to the episode

Plot
 * Again you use later in consecutive sentences
 * Could not find.
 * "Fat Tony falls in love with her humor, and later grants her the chance to get liposuction. The couple later go on a date off the coast of New Jersey, on which he proposes to Selma." - maybe "Afterwards, the couple go on a date..."?


 * I don't think the characters linked in the lead need linked in the plot too, but your call
 * People told me that you should re-link.
 * That's fine :)


 * "apologetic offer" - As an offer of apologies? To offer his apologies? I don't think apologetic offer means the same as those so can you clarify please
 * "Marge later finds out that Fat Tony is in a marriage with another woman, and she later tells Selma about this." - again overuse of later, and "tells Selma about this" is a bit badly worded, can you see if you can reword it
 * "these claims" -> "the claims"
 * Goomar is a redirect, is this the term the show used?
 * ✅ Wife
 * Who is Luigi? Can you provide some context?
 * What do you mean?
 * I think Sanders means you just suddenly mention Luigi without previously explaining why he was there (at least that was my impression when I first read the plot section).  R uby2010   comment!  04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I was meaning, how about "After talking with chef Luigi about truffles for his restaurant, Lisa uses Bart..."
 * You read my mind, well ✅.
 * I think Sanders means you just suddenly mention Luigi without previously explaining why he was there (at least that was my impression when I first read the plot section).  R uby2010   comment!  04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I was meaning, how about "After talking with chef Luigi about truffles for his restaurant, Lisa uses Bart..."
 * You read my mind, well ✅.
 * You read my mind, well ✅.


 * "Instead of selling them" - was she supposed to be selling them? Did they set up some kind of scheme or business?
 * Are there no repercussions to Lisa eating them? Seems odd to just add and they give the last one to the pig.
 * "Instead of selling them as planed before, Lisa has been eating them, so with pity for the pig who didn't get to eat any, they give the last truffle to Luigi's pig." - You have typo'd planned as planed, and it's a little bit wordy, how about "...Lisa has been eating them. They feel sorry for Luigi's pig, who did not get to eat any, so give him/her/it the last one." Also if the pig has eaten the last one, how is it able to tear through the restaurant and eat more?
 * ✅ but
 * Well if it's eaten the last truffle, how can it eat more of them? There is still a typo "planed" -> "planned"
 * ✅ and fixed another.
 * Well if it's eaten the last truffle, how can it eat more of them? There is still a typo "planed" -> "planned"
 * ✅ and fixed another.


 * There are two dab links, truffle and mafia

Production
 * Is there a press release you can use to reference the air date and animated night?
 * ✅ but
 * "as part of the animated television night" - I just thought it might be mentioned in the press release that the episode was a part of this
 * Removed so ✅


 * "This episode was directed by Lance Kramer. This would be Kramer's first direction work of the season, having last directed a Simpsons episode in the season twenty-one episode, "To Surveil with Love"." - I would merge these sentences to give a better flow, something like "The episode was the first of the season to be directed by Lance Kramer, who last directed.."
 * I don't think reference 3 is necessary but you can keep it if you like
 * "Mantegna reprised his role as Fat Tony, in his second appearance in the season. Mantegna previous made an appearance on the episode "Donnie Fatso"." - this is a bit repetitive, and previous should be previously
 * Is reference 5 a mistake? It doesn't mention Mantegna
 * ✅ episode credits
 * Reference 2 and 5 are both episodes but have been referenced differently
 * ✅ episode credits
 * Reference 2 and 5 are both episodes but have been referenced differently


 * "twenty-one episode, "To Surveil with Love".[2]" and "twenty-one episode, "Moe Letter Blues".[2]" - as far as I can see these statements are not supported by the reference
 * Well you have said "This is the first time that Kavner reprised her role as Patty and Selma since the season twenty-one episode, "Moe Letter Blues"" is supported by referencing the current episode, do they say in the episode "This is the first time Patty and Selma have appear since..."? You can use the episode to say that Patty and Selma appeared, but not that this is their first appearance of the season. Similarly you can reference the episode to say it was directed by Kramer (although a press release would be better!) but you can't use it to support that they haven't directed since last season.
 * I'm a bit unsure that you can reference the last episode they were in to support that they haven't appeared since then, but to be fair I doubt you would ever find an article with that kind of statement so I think that's the best you can do
 * I'm a bit unsure that you can reference the last episode they were in to support that they haven't appeared since then, but to be fair I doubt you would ever find an article with that kind of statement so I think that's the best you can do
 * I'm a bit unsure that you can reference the last episode they were in to support that they haven't appeared since then, but to be fair I doubt you would ever find an article with that kind of statement so I think that's the best you can do

Cultural references
 * "Parodical references are made by the appearances of the characters:" - this doesn't read right to me, maybe "Many of the characters are parodies of characters from Jersey Shore"?
 * You list the characters in the form x, x and x, while x, I would either do x, x, x and x, split it into two sentences or try and reword it.
 * An "obvious" parody?
 * As far as I can see the references don't support the statements in the section. I can't see any that mention the title is a reference, and in fact the only thing I can see in the referencing is that the show parodies Jersey Shore. I think you either need to remove this section, or make the sourcing clearer and find better sources.
 * An "obvious" parody?
 * As far as I can see the references don't support the statements in the section. I can't see any that mention the title is a reference, and in fact the only thing I can see in the referencing is that the show parodies Jersey Shore. I think you either need to remove this section, or make the sourcing clearer and find better sources.
 * As far as I can see the references don't support the statements in the section. I can't see any that mention the title is a reference, and in fact the only thing I can see in the referencing is that the show parodies Jersey Shore. I think you either need to remove this section, or make the sourcing clearer and find better sources.

Reception
 * "It was also the only new episode of any show on the line-up to air to its planned date." - can you provide some context to me of what this is about?
 * Don't know so removed so ✅ and
 * "despite airing" - does this mean the ratings are unexpectedly high? Is it competing with high rated shows or different shows from normal? I don't see why this point is needed
 * Me neither.
 * "The total viewership was highest of the animation television night on Fox, but was the second lowest among other simultaneous shows ... Ratings for the episode were one of the highest of the night" - this is a little bit confusing since it goes highest, lowest, highest. The last sentences reads like it is a repeat of the first, I'm assuming this means across all networks that night? Could you give a number (ie fifth highest rated, sixth highest rated) rather than saying one of the highest?
 * You've removed the first part but can you do something about "Ratings for the episode were one of the highest of the night.", it's unclear as to what this means, it shouldn't say "one of", it should say the third highest or sixth highest or whatever number it was
 * "The episode was first broadcasted on May 1, 2011, and it was viewed by 6.109 million viewers upon its original airing.[8] While this episode achieved a 2.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic, according to the Nielson ratings.[8]" -> "...upon its original airing, and achieved a 2.9 rating..."
 * "The episode was first broadcasted on May 1, 2011, and it was viewed by 6.109 million viewers upon its original airing.[8] While this episode achieved a 2.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic, according to the Nielson ratings.[8]" -> "...upon its original airing, and achieved a 2.9 rating..."
 * "The episode was first broadcasted on May 1, 2011, and it was viewed by 6.109 million viewers upon its original airing.[8] While this episode achieved a 2.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic, according to the Nielson ratings.[8]" -> "...upon its original airing, and achieved a 2.9 rating..."


 * "The episode's total viewership and ratings were significantly up from the previous episode, "The Great Simpsina", which was viewed by 4.996 million viewers upon its initial airing, and garnered a 2.3 rating in the 18-49 demographic,[11] which was the lowest rated episode in the series' history.[11]" - "which" shouldn't be followed by another "which", and since it is the same reference the one mid-sentence isn't needed
 * Now it reads like you're saying this episode is the lowest rated. How about "The episode's total viewership and ratings were significantly up from the previous episode, "The Great Simpsina", the lowest rated episode of The Simpsons, which was viewed by 4.996 million viewers upon its initial airing, and garnered a 2.3 rating in the 18-49 demographic."?
 * Prose could be improved but it's acceptable
 * Prose could be improved but it's acceptable
 * Prose could be improved but it's acceptable


 * "markets" - I'm British so this might be something obvious to an American but what does it mean? Regions? Networks?
 * ✅ It ment regions, I admit that it wasn't obvious.
 * I would say Ponywether's review was mixed not positive, she was quite negative about the sub-plot
 * Reference 11
 * Sorry I should have been clearer, I was just stating my opinion there, not giving you a quote to put in the article, you don't need to put in "not positive, she was quite negative about the subplot". Please reword this section too "Ariel Ponywether of Firefox News Ponywether's review was mixed not positive, she was quite negative about the sub-plot. She felt that it was a decent episode, noting that it was "funny, but not that much."[11] Ponywether ultimately gave the episode a 'B+' grade" The first part of that doesn't make sense
 * Sorry I should have been clearer, I was just stating my opinion there, not giving you a quote to put in the article, you don't need to put in "not positive, she was quite negative about the subplot". Please reword this section too "Ariel Ponywether of Firefox News Ponywether's review was mixed not positive, she was quite negative about the sub-plot. She felt that it was a decent episode, noting that it was "funny, but not that much."[11] Ponywether ultimately gave the episode a 'B+' grade" The first part of that doesn't make sense
 * Sorry I should have been clearer, I was just stating my opinion there, not giving you a quote to put in the article, you don't need to put in "not positive, she was quite negative about the subplot". Please reword this section too "Ariel Ponywether of Firefox News Ponywether's review was mixed not positive, she was quite negative about the sub-plot. She felt that it was a decent episode, noting that it was "funny, but not that much."[11] Ponywether ultimately gave the episode a 'B+' grade" The first part of that doesn't make sense


 * "In his review for "The Real Housewives of Fat Tony", " - this is unnecessary, it is clear that it is coming from his review
 * You haven't changed it
 * You haven't changed it


 * "He opined: While I'm usually a fan..." - the opening quotation mark is missing
 * ✅ by cutting (unnecessary)
 * You haven't changed it


 * Why is terrible in square brackets?
 * You are quoting the reference and the reference says terrible so I don't understand why it is square brackets when it doesn't need it
 * You are quoting the reference and the reference says terrible so I don't understand why it is square brackets when it doesn't need it


 * "He criticized the writer's capabilities, writing: "The show’s writers" - could you use a different verb here instead of writing so it's less repetitive?
 * Should be fixed by next.
 * "He criticized the writer's capabilities of writing as in his opinion, that they are not funny." - that is really badly written, how about "He criticized the writing for the episode, saying it was not funny."?
 * And once again you say something is done when you haven't changed it
 * And once again you say something is done when you haven't changed it


 * I think you are giving undue weight to Simon Abrams opinion, I think you should cut his comments down a bit
 * ✅: Cut them to the bone and removed comments to go to "criticism of declining quality.
 * Overall I think the episode was quite badly received, and would probably describe it as mixed to negative reviews
 * "The episode was met with a mixed response from television critics." -> "The episode was met with a mixed to negative response from television critics.", and the same should be done for the lead.
 * "The episode was met with a mixed response from television critics." -> "The episode was met with a mixed to negative response from television critics.", and the same should be done for the lead.


 * "The episode was first broadcast on May 1, 2011. The episode was the first to air within the animated television schedule. It was succeeded by reruns of The Cleveland Show, Family Guy and American Dad!. It was viewed by 6.109 million viewers upon its original airing.[8] It achieved a 2.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic, according to the Nielson ratings.[8]" - how about "The episode was first broadcast on May 1, 2011. It was the first to air within the animated television schedule and was succeeded by reruns of The Cleveland Show, Family Guy and American Dad!. The episode was viewed by 6.109 million viewers upon its original airing and achieved a 2.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic" for slightly better flow?
 * I was thinking that too. ✅
 * Can you merge some of the last few paragraphs so there aren't paragraphs only one or two lines long?
 * Just noticed a minor mistake in the quote box, there are two quotation marks before the episode title instead of one
 * Just noticed a minor mistake in the quote box, there are two quotation marks before the episode title instead of one

References
 * You should use a consistent date format across references
 * I would say MSN.com and add a link to MSN#MSN.com
 * , there is a reference to MSN
 * I mean you have referenced "Tv.msn.com" whereas I would say MSN.com
 * I mean you have referenced "Tv.msn.com" whereas I would say MSN.com


 * I can't see where you got the date on the Daemon's review page
 * so ✅
 * You've put the wrong date of the firefox reference
 * You've sourced the reference to TVline when it's TV fanatic, also the date on it is wrong
 * Reference 10 is missing the date, missing an accessdate, should go surname, first name, TV by the Numbers should be linked and should not be in italics (also an issue for reference 11)
 * Still some issues (they are now reference 7 and 8). The first half of ref 8 is right and the second half of ref 7 is right. "Bill Gorman. "TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2011-05-03." should be "Gorman, Bill (date). "TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2011-05-03.
 * Reference 10 is missing the date, missing an accessdate, should go surname, first name, TV by the Numbers should be linked and should not be in italics (also an issue for reference 11)
 * Still some issues (they are now reference 7 and 8). The first half of ref 8 is right and the second half of ref 7 is right. "Bill Gorman. "TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2011-05-03." should be "Gorman, Bill (date). "TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2011-05-03.
 * Still some issues (they are now reference 7 and 8). The first half of ref 8 is right and the second half of ref 7 is right. "Bill Gorman. "TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2011-05-03." should be "Gorman, Bill (date). "TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2011-05-03.


 * Should there be external links? I picked a random episode that was a GA ("The Cartridge Family") and it has external links
 * External links are not needed.
 * They're not necessary but it was just so it could be consistent with other Simpsons episode articles
 * Just like the "Cultural References" section.

In general the article seems okay, except for the cultural references. There is no way the article can be passed until that is addressed. Also the references have many mistakes in them which need fixed. Most of the other issues are stylistic, you can take my suggestions, reword it yourself, or leave it if you disagree with me. I am placing this article on hold for seven days, feel free to ask if you need me to clarify any of my comments. Good luck! Sanders11 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have struck off the concerns that have been addressed, and added comments for the issues you had. A few extra days to fix them when you are on holiday is not a problem :) Sanders11 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to be back at Halifax the 8th July 2011.


 * I've struck off everything addressed so far. Enjoy your holiday! Sanders11 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've struck some more, but I must admit I am becoming frustrated that you keep saying you have addressed points when you haven't. Sanders11 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since its getting frustrated, I will just close it. I'm not that good at it.   EBE123  talkContribs 15:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a few points remaining. Sanders11 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've given you plenty of time to deal with the issues and you are still claiming to have corrected points that you haven't. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this article. It still has poor prose in places for example "While this episode achieved a 2.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic, according to the Nielson ratings." and "He criticized the writer's capabilities of writing as in his opinion, that they are not funny". The production section is largely referenced using primary sources when it shouldn't be. Whilst I don't think having a Cultural references section is essential for an episode article, I do think the lack of it makes it borderline on whether the article covers all the necessary points. Therefore on the basis of there being issues not meeting the requirements of 1a, 2a and 3a I am failing the article. Better luck next time. Sanders11 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)