Wikipedia:Peer review/The Great Simpsina/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would want it to be a good article a time. I would like to get this article at the best shape it could be.
Thanks, ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs • 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- The article lacks production and reception information. You probably should have added that to the article before listing it for peer review. Theleftorium (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also, IMDb and Simpsons park are not reliable sources. Theleftorium (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, EBE just wants to know how to do a proper episode GA. I see no harm in listing it for peer review.
- Anyway, you need to find a lot more content for the article. Look for reviews and interviews. There is a great deal of guest stars in this episode - what do they have to say about it. Likewise, look for interviews with the writer and director as well as Al Jean. Also, I would recommend that you read Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources. --Maitch (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- A good article on an episode of a popular television series should have plot, conception/production, and reception information to satisfy the "broad coverage" criterion. While we have Plot here, Conception/Production is absent and Reception is not substantial enough. Conception/Production should have the ideas for the episode (how the themes and such came about, what problems cropped up, any particular interesting developments, etc). Aside from viewing figures, the Reception should have several (I would say a minimum of 3) opinions on why the show is good or bad from respectable reviewers. Look for information from reliable sources, such as magazines, notable media sites (e.g. Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, etc). The sole image File:Simpsons The Great Simpsina promo.jpg is a prime candidate for deletion in its current state. As a non-free image, its use here has to be qualified on all 10 points of WP:NFCC. It pretty much violates all 10 points at the moment. Jappalang (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
