Talk:Treehouse of Horror IV/GA1

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

My review
From Intro:
 * "In "The Devil and Homer Simpson", when Homer announces he would sell his soul for a doughnut, the Devil, disguised as Ned Flanders, shows up to make a deal with Homer." This sentence needs badly to be reworded. Too many clauses broken up by commas, it doesn't flow well. If necessary, it would be better to break it into two sentences, like the descriptions for the other two stories.


 * It should be mentioned both in the Intro and under Production that, like all the Treehouse of Horror specials, this episode is considered non-canon from the rest of the series. (There is precedent for this in other Simpsons articles; for example, The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular mentions it.)

Under The Devil and Homer Simpson:
 * I may be nit-picking here, but in the first sentence, where it says, "the Devil appears in the disguise of Ned Flanders," is the devil really DISGUISED as Ned, or does he simply resemble Ned?


 * Is there a specific character that plays Homer's lawyer (I'm embarrassed to say I haven't seen this episode, even though I love the Treehouse of Horror series). I would guess it's Lionel Hutz, but I don't know. If there is a specific character, can you mention who he/she is?


 * If I'm not mistaken, Homer is forced to endure a few comical punishments in Hell. Could you mention them in here (without being redundant with the cultural references section)?
 * This doesn't appear to be done yet. What I meant was, can you mention what some of the comical punishments were specifically, not just the fact that he was punished? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Better?  The Le ft orium  16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Better?  The Le ft orium  16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Production:
 * "...but reappeared in later episodes because the writers felt he was "such as perfect stereotype"." Since the last portion of this is part of an exact quote, you need to identify who exactly said it.

Under Cultural references:
 * Every single cultural reference in the first paragraph is already cited in "Production" or elsewhere in the story. Its a bit redundant. Please remove one of the references and add whatever references are left over from the deleted one into the remaining one.
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain a bit more?
 * What I mean is, in the first paragraph of Cultural references, you talk about the references to Night Gallery, the Twilight Zone episodes, Bram Stoker's Dracula and A Charlie Brown Christmas. But you also mention each of those in the Production section and, as it reads now, it's a bit redundant. Can you rework it so the references in one of the sections are either removed or scaled down, so as not to be too repetitive? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? — The Le ft orium  16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I made a few grammatical changes, so please give them a look and let me know if you're OK with them. As I noted in my last review, try to stay away from "sentences" with one word "quotes" in them, as well as overusing the word "that."

Nice job, once again! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :)  The Le ft orium  09:43, 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.

That'd be a pass. Well done! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)