Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Philcha in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with   Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it   Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Coverage

edit

Structure

edit
  •  Y Flows naturally. I thought for a few seconds about the placement of section "Cultural references" and concluded you were right to place it before "Themes" and "reception" in case it explains any items in the latter. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Prose quality

edit
  • Even on a quick skim through I saw many places where the prose needs improvement. I'll comment on items in "Plot" and leave you to find and improve the rest - if I got into copyediting the whole article I'd be too involved. I suggest you work through the exercises at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), skipping the MOS-specific section. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Plot

edit
(comment) Plot summaries are the pits - I'd show you how much grief I'm getting over one of mine, but that might be pointy :-)
Despite the meesage I got yestereday, this section alone still has plenty of unresolved issues. I suggest you get a good copyeditor - preferably one who is not a Simpsons fan and therefore will not assume background knowledge. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
OKay, I have addressed your comments. This section is a mess of comments, so could you post future concerns in a new one? -- Scorpion0422

Production

edit

Cultural references

edit

Themes

edit

In a lot of these cases, it's necessary to attribute the quotes to an author and a source, which is why the books are mentioned ion the text. I have tries to cut down on the number of quotations. -- Scorpion0422 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reception

edit

Overall impression

edit

This is a seriously good article disfigured by poor prose - and I'm no prose maven. When you copyedit, please make sure refs stay attached ot the items they're meant to support.

If you disagree with my comments, you can request a 2nd opinion at WT:GAN; if so, you'll need to wikilink to this review. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Use of images

edit

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead

edit

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Responses

edit

Thank you for the above points. I am going to try to address them, I am also trying to get some help from editors to do some copy-editing as it helps to have some fresh eyes. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's always easier to copyedit someone else's text :-/ Philcha (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have over-hauled the plot and production sections. I felt they were both too over-detailed and had too many brackets. -- Scorpion0422 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Update - posted requests for copyediting help

Posted a request for additional copyediting help to:

  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion
  3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Animation
  4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation
  5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

Cirt (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update, I'll keep watching. However I think you need to make some effort yourself:

  • My experience with outside help has not been encouraging, and I suspect most good copyeditors prefer to use their skills on their own topics. For a warm-up you could try User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), skipping the MOS section.
  • We can't let this drag on forever - I posted comments on 19 May, 19 days ago.

--Philcha (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

    • To be fair, we began responding to your comments not long after they were posted. You have been taking a long time to check back, so it's not our fault that this has gone on for so long. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Thank you for the advice. I will attempt to address the points you have raised above, myself. (Those that have not yet been addressed by other fresh eyes.) Cirt (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have gone through and responded to every point in the article. -- Scorpion0422 23:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result of review

edit

I've just been told by the nominator that an edit war is in progress and may take some time to resolve. At the nominator's request I am closing this review as a fail since the article is unstable, i.e.fails WP:WIAGA criterion 5. --Philcha (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.