Talk:Miracle on Evergreen Terrace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle on Evergreen Terrace article.

Article policies
Good article Miracle on Evergreen Terrace 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.
Featured topic star Miracle on Evergreen Terrace is part of the "The Simpsons (season 9)" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Christmas Vacation reference?

I could be wrong, but I wonder if the scene towards the beginning, with the family standing outside as Homer plugs in the lights, is a reference to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. The staging is similar, as is how Homer plugs in the light. Plus - he's plugging in house lights, albeit, done in a typical half-assed Homer style! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.148.57 (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref 2

This article says simpsons.com, but clicking the link takes you to the BBC. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the production section at the moment is incomprehensible. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

Reception section could use a few more sources. Introduction/Lead could use some expansion, at the very least three more sentences or so. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Y Done - Added two more sources and info to the Reception section. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lead

The lead paragraph could still use some expansion. Maybe one or two sentence expansion summary of the plot, and two or more sentences summarizing the remaining subsections of the article. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Y Done - Expanded the intro a bit, should be good now. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Good article nominations Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): I made a few tweaks, please make sure I didn't change any meanings. Also, could you make the Cultural References section sound a little less like an unbulleted list? Also, the second sentence of Plot (Homer and cashier) doesn't seem to make sense as written. b (MoS): Develop (Expand) lead a little bit more; It doesn't seem to cover enough plot details, so a little more specifics would be nice
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): I put in one cite needed tag c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): There are some things in the lead that aren't mentioned in the article. Also, is there anything about Trebek's experience as a guest star out there? b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Man, that was fast. Good job. I still think another copyedit would help, but I'm passing it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)