Talk:There's Something About Marrying/GA1

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

Reviewer:  R uby2010   comment!  21:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I will review soon.  R uby2010  comment!  21:36, 6 August 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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:

Comments

 * The lead's plot is a little long and detailed for a section meant to summarize, but otherwise seems fine to me
 * I have to disagree, I think it's the prefect length considering that the rest of the article is pretty long. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just a suggestion, no obligation to change it  R uby2010   comment!  23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indicate Burns was a co-executive producer
 * I don't see why that's important. There's a lot of them on the show. And no other Simpsons articles list co-executive producers. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes many of them do. Just look at the articles by Queenieacoustic. I find that indicating how a writer/director relates to the show adds a lot to the article, rather than saying just mentioning a potentially obscure name.  R uby2010   comment!  23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Theleftorium (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any DVD special features?
 * This season hasn't been released on DVD. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article were to progress to FA (it certainly is close to reaching the criteria), I'd wait for the special features to be released.  R uby2010   comment!  23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "According to the publications Zeek: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture and Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights," Is it publication or publications?
 * It's two publications. The word "and" isn't italicized. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A screenshot would really add to the article, assuming you could come up with a good enough rational for it
 * I can't think of any screenshot that would pass WP:NFCC#1 and #8. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 4 (The Advocate) and 10 need authors and access date
 * Access date added to both (I don't know the authors since I got the information from Google Books' snippet view). Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Use consistent date formatting (Compare ref 2 to 7 for instance)
 * Done. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Digital Spy is not italicized
 * Done. Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On hold for seven days while everything gets sorted. Good job with a controversial subject.  R uby2010  comment!  19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for the review! :) Theleftorium (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Happy to pass this one for GA. Nice work!  R uby2010   comment!  23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :D Theleftorium (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)