Talk:I'm with Cupid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1a (Prose clear, spelling correct) and 1b (lead, layout, W2W, fiction, list stuff)

Lead

Valentine's day (capitalize Day)
"Apu gives his wife "--> gives to his wife?
"Apu, in order to sabotage" - Remove ", in order"
"would air on" --> was to air on
"to be relate to" --> to relate to
The lead should also discuss stuff from the Cultural references section.

Production

"Valentine's day" - capitalize Day
The article says that the episode was created because it aired on Valentine's Day. I'm not quite sure what that means.
Are you able to specify which the TV series that had an episode that conflicted with this episode's name?

Unfortunately, no. The name of the series is not mentioned in the commentary. Queenieacoustic (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He does not believe that copyright issues will arise though:" --> However, he did not believe that copyright issues would arise:

Reception

The reviews are probably better described as generally positive. Not all the included reviews approved of the episode.

Criterion 2a (All stuff cited, separate ref section)

The Plath ref should link to page 2.

Criterion 2b (Argue-able stuff is cited)

In the lead, cite the 7.7 million/48th place tidbit.

Criterion 2c (WP:NOR)

All clear here.

Criterion 3b (all main topics covered)

Checks out.

Criterion 3c (doesn't go into unnecessary detail)

Looks alright.

Criterion 4 (no undue weight)

This one's good.

Criterion 5 (stable)

Tis stable indeed.

Criterion 6a (images properly documented)

The Elton John photo checks out.

Criterion 6b (captions and images relevant)

The Elton John photo checks out in both cases.

Overall comments

Excellent work. This is already a high quality article, and after the tweaks, should be all set for GA. Good work, Queenieacoustic! This was actually quite an interesting read to me. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! And thanks for the review, I'm pretty sure I've fixed all of its problems now. Thanks again! Queenieacoustic (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :)

Everything you addressed was done well, but you actually missed two of my comments. All that's left is to cite the viewer statistic in the lead, and to say that the reviews were generally positive (the reviews you listed were largely positive, but some had quite a few problems with the episode). Sorry for the inconvenience, but after those last two, this will be set to go. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, how could I miss those! I changed the reviews summation to largely positive, but I'm actually a bit concerned about your other suggestion. Why should I cite the viewers statistic in the Lead when it's already cited in Reception? Again, thanks for the review! Queenieacoustic (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I've addressed your concern with my reply at Talk:Lisa Gets an "A"/GA1. Let me know what you think. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Thanks again for the review! Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll pass the article momentarily. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 11:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]