Talk:Saddlesore Galactica/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this one now. Review to follow. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that diving horses were a real sideshow. How sad.

The plot summary feels a smidge longer than it needs to be.
- I removed a part about Clinton. I was already considering to remove it since it's really not an important part of the storyline. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many races does Duncan win before the jockeys threaten Homer? The plot section seems inconsistent with the lead.
- I can't remember specifically how many, but both the lead and plot says "several" now. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The animators found a post card with a picture on it of this horse diving, and they used it as reference while animating the scene of Duncan diving." This doesn't read so well
- I'm having trouble rewording this. I made a slight change to the sentence, maybe it's better now? If not perhaps you have some suggestion? :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "analysis" section is great; adds a scholarly note to what would otherwise be just another episode article. I'm wondering whether "Analysis" is too vague a title, though; how about something like "Self-references"? "Use of metafictional devices"? If you disagree, please do not change it; I'm thinking aloud.
- Actually that's quite a good idea. I changed it to "Meta-references". Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the terrible critical reception could be made clearer in the lead; I wouldn't worry about a violation of the NPOV when even the positive critics recognise that the episode "was much despised".
- I've made some changes. Don't know if it's better though. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check your formatting on reference 7
- I've used Template:Cite episode so it should be correct. Technically references are not needed when writing about the plot, but since this was in the production section I added it just in case.
Again, thinking aloud, but considering you have some very well-sourced discussion of the metafictional elements of this episode, I wonder if something like Category:Metafictional works may be appropriate. I'm not sure, though.
- Yep, good idea. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot to say- another excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, but I'm going to have limited internet access for a few days. I'll be back with you as soon as possible. J Milburn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I wasn't expecting a review this fast anyway!

Found a few minutes. Looking though again, that footnote is still annoying me, but perfect reference formatting is certainly not a requirement for GA status. This article is very much ready- the fact that this is considered perhaps the worst episode and the fact that it's been mentioned in somewhat scholarly sources really makes it worthwhile. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]