Talk:Maggie Simpson/GA2

GA review

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

Nominator: Fengrímur (talk · contribs) 16:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fengrímur: - Hey! My comments are below. Ping me when you get a chance to get it all updated. You have seven days, as per normal. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

   Order is a little all over the place - you're talking about her critical reception, including in specials focusing on her, before mentioning the specials focusing on her. MoS is followed, and

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reference section is present and effective. No areas are unreferenced. Highest copyvio is 9%, with unrephrasable phrases and titles. Spot=-check of 15 sources shows no problems. International Business Times should be swapped out for a different source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Doesn't seem complete - just from a quick scan, I dug up Lindsay Lohan voice-acting her in 2025 and Jodie Foster also voice-acting her in 2025, as well as Amy Sedaris and James Earl Jones. The intelligence section doesn't mention anything from Smart and Smarter. There's also no mention of Future Maggie, alternate-dimension maggies, Game Done Changed, and probably more. Please update. It is focused on Maggie, though.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It seems to have solid critical reviews, both positive and negative, and that works.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no sign of editing wars

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

   Images are tagged with rationales, and are appropriately used, but there's no alt text and the rationale lists Maggie as "him".

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: