Talk:Tracy Flick/GA1

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

Review
I have reviewed this article and I'm as satisfied as I can be that it meets the Good Article requirements.

It is clear and concise and is not biased towards anything. There are plenty of references and nothing in the article that I can see that would possibly be challenged. I propose to leave this review open for a few days to allow comments before making my final decision on this article. --5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review; glad to hear it passed muster! Propaniac (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm going to leave this open for a few days in case anyone has any comments that they wish me to take into consideration. If there's no response within a few days then I don't see why it shouldn't be graded as a good article :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am about to pass Tracy Flick as a good article for the reasons listed above. It is clear and concise and unbiased. Nothing in the article can be challenged that I can see as everything is referenced and cited where it needs to be. The only suggestion I can make to improve the article is before you edit it, make sure your edits aren't mentioned elsewhere. Tonight I moved part of the intro as it was already touched upon elsewhere in the article --5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive my drive-by comment, but I reverted your previously mentioned edit, 5 albert square, because it goes against the Manual of Style, particularly WP:LEAD; the lead or introductory section of an article is meant to summarize the article as a whole, so repetition is of course necessary. :) María ( habla con migo ) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)