Talk:Lisa Gets an "A"/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It might take me a couple days. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Or not! :)

I'll see what I can get done in the free time I have. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1 (clear prose, correct spelling/grammar; MOS-compliant)

Lead

• "that she failed to study for" - for which she fails to study
• I think "is subsequently" can be replaced by "becomes."

Plot

• "After yet another" --> "After a"
• Strike "in his words".
• Exchange "titled" for "named"
• "flavors of" --> flavors at
• "which ultimately results in her getting a cold" --> which ultimately causes her to catch a cold
• " by Ralph, even faking" --> by Ralph. She even fakes the
• "while the rest of the family looks on." - What does this mean?

Production

• "and the third act took a long time to come up with" --> and it took a long time to come up with the third act
• The Eatie Gourmet's part doesn't tie well into the article. Can you explain how it fits into the plot?

The Simpsons trip to Eatie Gourmet's sets up both the main plot and the subplot, so I think it's relevant enough. Queenieacoustic (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the clarification! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Themes/Cultural refs

• "she will fail the test she has not studied to. " - Can you deal away with the hanging preposition?

Home reception

• "memorable," however "the" --> memorable," although "the
• As for the review thing, it is probably more accurate to say "mostly positive."
• You said "eh" instead of "he" somewhere.

Criterion 2 (all stuff cited, controversial stuff cited, ref section/unlined citations exist, NOR)

• Cite the Catholic League mention that is in the lead.
• Cite the viewer statistics in the lead.

Again, since the two above are already cited in the article, I don't understand why they have to be cited again in the Lead? Queenieacoustic (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statistics and controversial material are, according to the GA criteria, meant to be cited. The lead is the first place where readers see this information, which is why I ask of it—I know it's been cited elsewhere in the article—but just because it is so doesn't change the fact that there was controversy and that there is a statistic. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cite the quote in the quote box.
• I couldn't find a reference to the episode in ref 13.

Criterion 3 (main topics covered; no unnecessary detail)

Seems alright here.

Criterion 4 (no undue weight)

Agree.

Criterion 5 (stable)

Looks as it is so.

Criterion 6 (images have listed copyright status and relevant captions)

Seems all set.

Overall comments

Congratulations on yet another one. :) As before, just a few tweaks, and this one will be ready too! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for another thorough review! I've answered the majority of your concerns, but there are a few that I'm a bit skeptical about. Thanks again for the review! Queenieacoustic (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the remaining questions and comments you've had. Hopefully that should help clarify the rest. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just added the citation. Thanks for the clarification! Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :)

I'll pass the article in a sec... --Starstriker7^(Talk) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)