Talk:Hurricane Neddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Neddy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
TV This article is part of WikiProject The Simpsons, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also our guide to sources.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within The Simpsons.

Hurricane Neddy was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-04-04

Hurricane Neddy is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{GAnominee|insert date in any format here}}

[edit] Moving of quotes section

Noticed the quotes section was removed from "Hurricane Neddy" per editor who says we should use the wikiquote page for such material instead. OK, I support that since it was a logical move, but if the quotes have been moved (don't know if they have), shouldn't a "Wikiquote" tag be added directing users to the place where they now reside? Thanks. [[Briguy52748 22:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)]]

[edit] GA Review

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No. Strings of disconnected sentences, short sentences, lack of flow, overuse of vernacular English.
2. Factually accurate?: Yes. Accurate, there was nothing I could find that was untrue.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. Generally although the sections outside the plot synopsis are not large enough
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Yes Very good suitable images

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. —

The content is there, although it needs a rewrite before it can be accepted as a good article. I've started with the first paragraph of the plot summaryJameiLei 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)