Talk:Hurricane Neddy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[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)]]
==GA Review==fix
[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)
[edit] Passes this time
I just looked it over and I feel the rewrite has been effective in rendering the article encyclopedic enough. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 April 2007 UTC.
[edit] Continuity
Am I the only one who noticed that the Flanders' house never actually got rebuilt, but in the next episode it's back to normal like nothing ever happened? Haddock420 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)