Talk:The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular/GA1

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

My review
Under Intro:
 * You mention that it is the third Simpsons clip show. Can you include the titles of the other two, with wikilnks to their article pages? This probably ought to be mentioned in the Production section as well.

Under Plot:
 * "...concerning the message that appears when Maggie is scanned in the cash register during the opening sequence of the show." I broke this into its own sentence, but since I don't remember off-hand what the trivia question was, the wording here confused me. Can you reword it to make it a bit more clear, and include what the actual question and answer were?
 * "...this time concerning two characters who have died within the past year." The wording here is much clearer, but again, can you include the answer?
 * "...most of which consist of random characters shooting Mr. Burns..." Can you include which random characters shoot Burns in those alternate endings? (This could be included under Production instead of Plot; I'll leave it to your judgment where to put it, but if you put it under Plot, remove this sentence from Production because it would be redundant: "Several endings were animated and that showed various characters shooting Mr. Burns, and were presented as part of this episode."

Under Production:
 * I did quote a bit of rewording, so take a look at all of them, but in particular look at my sentence about the producers asking the Simpsons staff to produce one clip show per season. I want to make sure I didn't change the facts during my rewording.
 * The part about having Hartman as the only actor was "guaranteed to be fun" has to be attributed to whoever specifically said it, since that part of it is in exact quotes.
 * "Mirkin's original intention was to fool the production staff and also leak the endings to various media outlets, but much to his surprise he was unsuccessful." What does this mean exactly? That he didn't fool the media outlets? Or that he wasn't able to leak them? Could you clarify this a bit?

Under Reception:
 * I'm not sure is a legitimate source. Can you find another source for this info and replace it?
 * "The episode has become study material for sociology courses at University of California Berkeley." This is a really, REALLY cool fact. Can you expand on this a bit, like what exactly is studying within the article; it seems the source has that information included, so it should be easy to expand.
 * "In general, the critical view on the episode is fairly positive, as "the out-takes are up to standard" and contains "a number of great self-referential moments", and has been praised for its visual style." Once again, when a portion of a quote, you have to identify who says it in addition to simply citing it. Rework this sentence to either include the names of the people saying those quote fragments, or remove the quotes altogether and paraphrase
 * "It has also been referred to as not simply a clip show, "but a ‘clip show’ that looks at the series with a sense of hyper-self-consciousness about its own textuality."" This quote also needs a name.

Rock on. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed most of your concerns, but I wont be able to finish this until Friday. You can cross over the stuff I'm done with if that helps. Cheers,  The Le ft orium  10:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:
 * 1) Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
 * 4) Neutral: Yes.
 * 5) Stable: Yes.
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try to expand the information about the sociology courses later. — The Le ft orium  16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)