Wikipedia:Peer review/Lisa the Skeptic/archive1

Lisa the Skeptic
This article was recently listed as a Good Article. I am looking for input and advice on how to improve its quality further to that of a Featured Article. This is part of a collaborative effort, as part of WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Do we need FA status for articles about a Simpsons episode? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an appropriate question for a peer review, where we discuss how to improve the quality of a particular article. But I am sure the other folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive would love to discuss this with you.  Also, please take a look at WikiProject The Simpsons for hard work done by many other Wikipedians on this topic, that currently has (14) Featured Articles.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks. Will ask over there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will begin to address points from the semi-automated peer review from Peer review/Automated/November 2007, here below.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
 * 1) Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] -- ✅ - Expanded lead to a second paragraph, summarizing subsections beyond just the plot. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 yards, use 500 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500&amp;nbsp;yards.[?] - ✅ - This was easy, there was only one instance of this in the article.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” - ✅ - I went through and checked the article.  There is one instance of "some", one instance of "few", and perhaps one other instance of another such word, but they are all used tastefully, and none of these example words are used more than once.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC) - These are, as always, great ideas, and we will continue to work on copyediting the article to improve its readability and level of quality.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)