Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2203d157b94f8ab

Jump to content

Talk:The Springfield Connection/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Production section, "The hand puppet is an homage to McGruff the Crime Dog – the producers had wanted to use McGruff, but that show had refused to allow the character to be used", "an" ---> "a". Also, what "show" are you referring to in the sentence?
    Done. -- 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, you might want to correctly link "The French Connection" to its correspondence article. In the Production section, it would be best if "David Mirkin" was linked once, per here. In the Cultural references section, "Additionally, Marge's training sequences features homages to Police Academy and Speed" ---> "Additionally, Marge's training sequences features homages to Police Academy (1984) and Speed (1994)", so that it can provide context for the reader.
    Done and done. -- Scorpion0422 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Check.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Everything has been done. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. Thank you to Scorpion for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply