Talk:The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Books (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject The Simpsons (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comedy (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Animation (Rated GA-class, Bottom-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Bottom  This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Contradiction: in the section, Background, It was an oral history of The Simpsons, featuring interviews with several of the writers and producers.[5] According to Ortved, The Simpsons producers decided not to cooperate and be interviewed for the project because they had heard that he was asking questions about Sam Simon. I find this confusing - were the producers interviewed? the first sentence says yes, the second says no Yes check.svg Done
    According to NPR reviewer Linda Holmes, Can we spell out National Public Radio? This acronym may be unfamiliar to many. Yes check.svg Done
    Content: The majority of the interviews were conducted by Ortved, but it does include past interviews or comments from some of the figures who refused to be interviewed by him. - then a few sentences later, Matt Groening, James L. Brooks and Sam Simon refused to participate in the book, or be interviewed by Ortved.[12] However, the book does include portions of interviews that they did with other sources. Repetition Yes check.svg Done
    Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Fox Broadcasting Company, agreed to be interviewed, then He also interviewed figures who were largely uninvolved with the production of the show, including Fox Broadcasting Company owner Rupert Murdoch - repetition. Yes check.svg Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References check out OK, support statements are RS. NB The Times link will disappear 1 June as all Murdoch papers are being made available only as pay as you view.
    • The Times link is now rotted - asks me to log in. Wayback Machine didn't help. Digifiend (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  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):
    The cover image in the infobox needs a caption, something like "Cover of US first edition" or whatever. Yes check.svg Done
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just a few relatively minor points to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
    Thanks for your quick response. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the review! I think I have addressed all of your issues. Theleftorium 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)