Talk:Bart the Mother/GA1

GA Review

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

• Nice work with this. The Production section in particular is in great shape. I made a few minor grammatical changes and I removed the citations for the plot summary, as WP:Plot summaries says they are unnecessary when the plot is of one single piece of work (in which case the citation would be the work itself).

• The only suggestion I have would be to add a Cultural references section with any movies, books or other cultural references from this episode. There is precedent for this as many of the Simpsons episode GAs have such sections included, like The Homer They Fall, I Love Lisa and Sweet Seymour Skinner's Baadasssss Song, to name a few.

• Once that's address, this will be an easy pass. Nice job!

-- Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the references to the plot. At first, I didn't use references for plots, but after a few discussions in which people questioned why there were no references, I found it easier and more complete to just add the references. Regarding Cultural references, I think I asked one of the WP:SIMPSONS pros, like User:Theleftorium, if there was anything to add for this section, and I was told that there wasn't. From watching the episode, I myself don't believe that there is enough to write an entire section; BBC confirms this; there is little there about references to culture. I think this is probably due to the more personal slant of the episode, and less random comedy. Gary King (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think the plot summary citations are not needed, but if there has been prior discussion on this before, I'm not going to fight it. To be honest with you though, I do sort of take exception to this, where the "some more fixes" you describe are basically you just reverting grammatical changes I made to the article during my review. I think "described" is a far better word choice there than "chose," and the word "that" can be removed from a sentence 9 times out of 10 and the sentence still makes sense; my editor at work always drills that one into my head. I'm not going to bother to fix them, since I think it could lead to the potentially stupidest edit war ever, but still...not so cool. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is fin, MOS is fine.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are fine, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Addresses main topics, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The "chose" is because the sentence immediately preceding it already uses "described". And I think both verbs are really interchangeable here as they aren't actually describing anything, but more like picking an episode. The "that"s are pretty subjective, and although I try to use them as little as possible, sometimes sentences sound more awkward without them so I see no harm in adding them in. The "simply" is a bit subjective as whom is it according to? Sounds like an opinion to me. The last fix was for spelling. Gary King (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The "that"s are ultimately a matter of preference, and since I don't mind it either way, I have removed both "that"s. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)