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

Reviewer: —Terrence and Phillip 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is another great article. Neatly-written and excellent prose. And the image is appropriately in fair use. Promoted. :) —Terrence and Phillip 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Ok, I'm gonna give this one a run through as well, to see if I can spot any issues.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• "Hank Azaria, the voice of Moe who" Comma after "Moe"
• "Word of moth spreads" Though I love the phrase, I doubt it's accurate :)
• "renamed "Flaming Moe's" soon" Comma after "Moe's"
• "representative offer Moe" offers
• "previously wrote for" written
• Beginning of para 3 in "production" could do with some TLC.
• Inconsistency on naming the cocktail- is it "Flaming Moe" or Flaming Moe? You may want to search the MOS for how we show cocktails.

1. I believe I have fixed all concerns raised, and I have tightened up the third paragraph of production.

   B. MoS compliance:

• Dab links- Joe Perry, Tom Hamilton, Young Lust
• "which Frink analyzes" Frink has not been previously mentioned
• "DVD Movie Guide's" What is this? A magazine? Italics?
• "Digitally Obsessed" ditto.
• "Cheers ' theme" What's going on there?!

1. DVD Movie GUide & Digitally Obsessed are both review websites, so I don't think they need italics. As for "Cheers ' theme", it was a copied quote, but I have fixed it.

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   However, see my closing comment.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   My initial reaction is I want to read more about Homer's madness. This is what I personally remember from the episode, and it is mentioned a couple of times, but never expanded upon. I am happy to pass without expansion on this point, but anything more you can get would be great, especially if you plan to take to FAC.

   I'd be happy to add a bit more about it, but I'm not sure what to add. Do you mean the scene where Homer starts hallucinating and seeing Moe everywhere, or are you referring to his short-lived quest to find another tavern?

   The hallucinations. It's a scene I enjoyed, and a few of the reviews mention it. Depends on what's in the sources, of course, but I feel the article could benefit. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

• "was skilled at"- rephrase?

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The use of the image seems perfectly legit, but the rationale could do with some touching up. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'll be watching this page, but still feel free to drop me a line when you've made the changes.

Generally not bad, and I would be happy to pass this once these issues have been resolved. If you're looking to take this to FAC, I would look to increase the number of secondary sources cited, as there currently seems to be a heavy reliance on primary sources. The secondary sources that are cited are sometimes a little lacking- there must be better stuff out there than local papers? AskMen.com is also not the best source. However, I appreciate that this is a pre-Internet episode. The prose generally could do with some massaging- for instance, the cultural references section just seems to be a list of points, in many way. However, I am happy with the article being a GA without these issues being resolved. J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised at how little there is out there about these older episodes, even the famous ones like this one. When using a newspaper archive like Newsbank, I find that usually the stuff that floats to the top (especially considering ratings) is from the smaller papers. I agree with you about AskMen, but considering that all that is being used is a review, I think it's okay. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above- also, you missed a couple of the points I mentioned (images, neutrality for instance). Sorry about my terrible formatting ruining the numbering. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the "skilled at" to "familiar with". I fixed the image rationale as well, and added "even having a hallucination where he sees Moe's face eveywhere" to the plot section. Is there anything else? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm happy to promote now. If you're looking to take this to FAC (I would be happy to offer a review if you do- message me!) then I have four general suggestions- expansion (easier said than done...) with anything you can find, references to more third party sources if possible, a general prose massage (perhaps get someone who is new to the article?) and prettifying (condense the lead a little, avoid short paragraphs, two columns in the ref field, things like that). Hope these prove useful. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]