Talk:Lisa's Pony/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I will be reviewing this article.

"Lisa likes ponies, we [should] give her a pony." - Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

How exactly did you get the quote? Did you just type in what you heard in the DVD?--Edge3 (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jean said on the DVD commentary that he told Reiss that exact quote. The leftorium 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the quote was spoken and not written, I've fixed the punctuation. --Edge3 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? The leftorium 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a second look at the article. --Edge3 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the online sources too to make sure there isn't any OR in the article. The leftorium 23:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They looked ok when I first checked them, but I can look at them a bit closer as well. --Edge3 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked all of your online sources. Everything looks ok. --Edge3 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The woman who sells the pony to Homer is based on actress Katharine Hepburn." - Seems more appropriate in the Cultural references section. --Edge3 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits better in the production section because that paragraph is about voice actors and it mentions that Tress MacNeille voiced the character.

"In a home movie..." - Which part of the episode is the home movie shown in? --Edge3 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"...praised the 'nice flashbacks to Lisa as a baby.'" - This was never mentioned in the plot. Would you please add it in?--Edge3 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in the cultural references section. I don't think it's important enough to be mentioned in the plot section. The leftorium 13:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In this episode, Homer inadvertently..." - Was it really inadvertent? The plot summary doesn't seem to support this. Did Homer go to the bar because he just forgot about the reed?--Edge3 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "inadvertently". Not needed. The leftorium 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, called the episode 'good stuff' and praised the 'nice flashbacks to Lisa as a baby.'" - Not supported by citation. --Edge3 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the sentence? The leftorium 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that BBC was taking info from the book. Nevermind. --Edge3 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Since airing, the episode has received mostly positive reviews from television critics." - Seems like WP:OR to me. --Edge3 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "mostly". The sentence is now a summary of the Reception section. The leftorium 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"with the exception of Lunchlady Doris who returned on The Simpsons in the episode 'The Mook, the Chef, the Wife and Her Homer'" - This is going to need a citation. --Edge3 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The leftorium 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! :) The leftorium 13:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep this review open until I get a messge from Ottava Rima. I hope you don't mind having to wait a bit longer. --Edge3 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights appear to check out. Many of the references are quoted, so there are no problems. Reception contains a large variety and is thus neutral. Notability is clearly established. Many of the references are from the commentary, and are primary source - there is enough in reception to make it notable, so primary source is not a concern. The commentary would have to be taken on good faith, unless someone owns a copy to verify. There doesn't seem anything that would prevent this from passing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm now passing the article. --Edge3 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]