Talk:Homer to the Max/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• Do you think you could expand the lead to explain the full plot, rather than just the first half of the plot, and also more details other than its writer and director. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, everything is fine, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the plot, let me know about that. What else do you want besides writer and director? That is all I've ever put for my other GAs, and other users have put. I'll gladly expand it, if you tell me what else you want :) Ctjf83Talk 02:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't get any longer than what you have already changed it to, Ctjf83 (this is a general rule of plot size in the lead). Cheers for the review, Peanut. Qst (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would try add a line about the reception to the lead or change the last line to "The episode was written ..., and received ...". The lead should summarise the entire article per WP:LEAD. At present it only really summaries the "plot" section of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. I've added some Nielsen ratings in there, too. I'll clean up the fair use rationale later (I was sure I'd already done that, but it seems I haven't). Qst (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Short but sweet, so perfect for a GAN. Just fix up the fair use rationale and it will be fine. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done — rationale cleaned up. Qst (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)