Talk:A Fish Called Selma/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

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):

   I believe in film and episode articles, the plots don't really need sources, they're just good to have, because the film or episode is its own source. Still, a few would help. Are there any in the "reviews"?

   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:

   I guess so...

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:

   Definitely. Good job on this one.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm not sure, so I'm asking for a second opinion from someone who knows more about the quality standards for The Simpsons articles than I do.

• Comments from Sillyfolkboy:
  • Personally I think the lead could be improved. Straight off I would say that "Barth wrote the episode" and Mark Kirkland directed"
  • The lead would read better if there was a clearer distinction between plot/production/reception. Perhaps another sentence describing the plot would help. Also, try to squeeze in the reason for the episode title (Fish called Wanda) and the EW eighth of top 25 info. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King

The article is decent, but the prose really needs some more work. The following are just examples, showing that more work needs to be done with regards to the prose.

• "Freelance writer Jack Barth wrote while the episode was directed by Mark Kirkland." – "Freelance writer Jack Barth wrote the episode, and Mark Kirkland directed it."
• "The episode has received manygenerally positive reviews"
• ", with much praise being given to Hartman and the musical." – "; particular praise was given to Hartman and the musical."
• "she will letlets him"
• "concerning fish havinghad essentially destroyed Troy's career"

Again, the above are just examples, showing the article needs more work in general, and a fresh copyedit. Gary King (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do... Gran² 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any more specific examples? I asked Theleftorium to copyedit it and he said he couldn't find any problems. Gran² 15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that it doesn't flow that well.

• The first paragraph of the lead should be longer. Add some production information there. It's only two sentences long right now.
• "were big fans of"
• "room; this included the" – "room, including the"
• "Due to the slow pace of Troy and Selma's speech, the episode ran too long. Guest star Jeff Goldblum had to rerecord his dialogue as MacArthur Parker at a faster speed." – "The episode ran too long because of the slow pace of Troy and Selma's speech. Consequently, guest star Jeff Goldblum rerecorded his dialogue as MacArthur Parker at a faster speed."
• "reviews; particular praise was given" – "reviews, with particular praise given"

So mainly, the flow needs to be better between related sentences. Use more transition words. Gary King (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is good enough now, passing. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Gran² 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)