Talk:New Kidney in Town/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 03:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review the article sometime in the next day or two. Ruby2010 talk 03:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• The plot needs some work that it flows better. For instance, He collapses. It is kidney failure and Peter needs a new one. sounds awkward. How about: He collapses from kidney failure, and is told he needs a new kidney.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• In the plot section, all the characters need links to their own articles (Peter, Lois etc).
  • Done. Gage (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• The production section could be expanded a little, but I understand appropriate content is sometimes difficult to find.
  • I've added as much existing information that I could possibly add, and believe it is sufficient. Gage (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• After becoming Jaundiced, Peter says he "feels like he can go on for another 20 years" referencing The Simpsons long run and their trademark yellow skin. Needs a reference.
  • I've removed the statement. It was added by someone else, and I believe it is completely original research. I doesn't belong in the article. Gage (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• The Reception section only contains reviews from two critics. Find a few more please.
  • I've added the only other review from a reliable source that is available, and I believe the section is now more than sufficient in its coverage of reception of the episode. Gage (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the review on hold for seven days while you look through my comments. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It all looks good. Pass for GA. Great work! Ruby2010 talk 03:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)