Talk:The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Contradiction: in the section, Background, It was an oral history of The Simpsons, featuring interviews with several of the writers and producers.[5] According to Ortved, The Simpsons producers decided not to cooperate and be interviewed for the project because they had heard that he was asking questions about Sam Simon.  I find this confusing - were the producers interviewed? the first sentence says yes, the second says no ✅
 * According to NPR reviewer Linda Holmes, Can we spell out National Public Radio? This acronym may be unfamiliar to many. ✅
 * Content: The majority of the interviews were conducted by Ortved, but it does include past interviews or comments from some of the figures who refused to be interviewed by him. - then a few sentences later, Matt Groening, James L. Brooks and Sam Simon refused to participate in the book, or be interviewed by Ortved.[12] However, the book does include portions of interviews that they did with other sources. Repetition ✅
 * Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Fox Broadcasting Company, agreed to be interviewed, then He also interviewed figures who were largely uninvolved with the production of the show, including Fox Broadcasting Company owner Rupert Murdoch - repetition. ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References check out OK, support statements are RS. NB The Times link will disappear 1 June as all Murdoch papers are being made available only as pay as you view.
 * The Times link is now rotted - asks me to log in. Wayback Machine didn't help. Digifiend (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * The cover image in the infobox needs a caption, something like "Cover of US first edition" or whatever. ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few relatively minor points to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) ✅
 * Thanks for your quick response. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review! I think I have addressed all of your issues.  The left orium  21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few relatively minor points to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) ✅
 * Thanks for your quick response. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review! I think I have addressed all of your issues.  The left orium  21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review! I think I have addressed all of your issues.  The left orium  21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)