Talk:Bart's Girlfriend/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In the "Reception" section with the sentece ", with a Nielsen rating of 9.6" I assume you mean it was viewed 9.6 million viewers? If this is the case could you please rephrase it so it seems more clear?

Nope, the rating is actually based on the number of household televisions that were tuned into the show (see Nielsen Ratings).

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There seems to be some kind of ref mix-up, ref 18 (TV Squad) links to an article recap about "And Maggie Makes Three", which is another Simpson episode.

 Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The fourth paragraph of the article consists mostly of Cultural References, I'd suggest a move to the section of that name, but this is not required, I'll leave it up to you.

The reason it's in production is because it says who wrote the joke and that they had to pay a lot of money for the rights to use the songs.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. 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):

   In the "Cultural References" section, could you please move the image to the right, per MOS:IMAGE, because it disconnects the text from the header. (Note that if you want one of the images on the left for the "balance" of the article, you can move the image of Meryl Streep to the left.)

   Moved all images to the right.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   If the above statements can be answered, I'll pass the article. BTW the article has good information and is of appropriate length for possibly FAc, just a tip. Good luck with improving the article.--Music26/11 20:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for reviewing. I think I have addressed all of your concerns. TheLeftorium 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

   Nice work, pass.--Music26/11 14:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)