Talk:Marge on the Lam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marge on the Lam article.

Article policies
Good article Marge on the Lam has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
TV
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within The Simpsons.

This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.


[edit] Summary

I created a new summary (see Marge on the Lam/Temp), based solely on my recollections of this great episode. Probably should mention the babysitting lawyer as well, but it's a start.... Turnstep 01:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music

What is the name of the song playing in the disco where Mayor Quimby was topless? 86.136.130.148 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some minor style and grammar errors, but I corrected them.
2. Factually accurate?: Article appears to be accurate.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article sees to cover all aspects.
4. Neutral point of view?: No evidence of a POV.
5. Article stability? No evidence of edit-wars.
6. Images?: Image is given fair-use rationale. You may want to use the Non-free use rational template.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— ISD (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)