Talk:Bart's Friend Falls in Love/GA1

GA Review

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

Overall, the article looks good. No major problems stand out, although more about the Production would be nice if the information is available. As I read through (probably a section at a time or so), my concerns are:

• The lead does not summarize the plot of the episode. I think something should be said about Bart bringing about the end of the relationship.

• Done. Theleftorium 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• rather than repeating "is a parody of the film" in the lead, it might be better to change one to "parodies the film". I'm not too concerned about this, though.

• Done 03md 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Milhouse and Samantha just sit around and kiss, if I remember correctly, so calling it "making out" (especially given the definition if one clicks on the wikilink) is a bit deceptive.

• Reworded. 03md 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• The connection to Casablanca should be explained for those that are not familiar with the film and don't understand the parallel.

• I can't find a reliable source that discusses the connection. This is the best we can get.

• Then this is all that can be said without resorting to original research. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Nate Meyers of Digitally Obsessed gave the episode a 4.5 rating" - out of what? I also think the site is called digitallyOBSESSED, although the capitalization of a website name isn't a big deal in a GA review.

• Clarified the rating but left name of website. 03md 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No title is given for the final reference in the "References" section.

• I'm not sure what title it can be given as episodes of The Hours do not have specific names.

• I suppose you're right. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see any source information for the picture of John Williams (aside from a mention that it is from Wikipedia).
  • User:Nationalparks took the picture and uploaded it to en.wikipedia.org under the CC-BY-SA license. User:Maddox then moved it to Commons. ([1]) --Theleftorium 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Now that I look at it now, it has adequate sourcing information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• This doesn't follow the same format as other Simpsons articles (a "Production and allusions" section rather than separate sections for "Production" and "Cultural references"). Is there a reason for this?

• Separated "Production and allusions" into two sections titled "Production" and "Cultural references". 03md 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted it back to one section. The reason is that the two last paragraphs in the section are a mix of information about production and cultural references and they work better together. Theleftorium 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I figured that might be the case. Not a problem. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than that, everything looks fine. I will place this nomination on hold for one week. Any responses can be left here, as I have this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have been working on a number of Simpsons articles so decided to hop on board to help with the article. 03md 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for the review! :) Theleftorium 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. It meets the GA criteria, so I am promoting it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)