Talk:The Psychology of The Simpsons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Psychology of The Simpsons has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 4, 2007.
December 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. 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. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) The Simpsons Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to The Simpsons. 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. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance within The Simpsons. Tasks you can do: Here are some tasks you can do: edit Collaboration: Featured topic Drive Copyedit: Merge: D'oh! → Homer Simpson (Discuss first) Cleanup: Bouvier family, Politics in The Simpsons, Springfield's state, The Simpsons Road Rage, Otto Mann, Martin Prince, Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten Shorten plot synopsis: Future-Drama, A Star Is Torn, All About Lisa, Mona Leaves-a, Smoke on the Daughter, Large Marge Reference: Bart Simpson, Bongo Comics, Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Comic Book Guy, Homer's Odyssey, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, Joshua Sternin, Lona Williams, Montgomery Burns, Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror, Rainier Wolfcastle, List of Springfield Elementary School students, Steve O'Donnell, Springfield's state, The Heartbroke Kid, The Itchy and Scratchy Game, Weekend at Burnsie's, World of Springfield Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, Bart's House of Weirdness, Big Bad Book of Bart Simpson, J. Stewart Burns, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, Simpsons Classics, The Simpsons: Bart vs. the World, The Simpsons Bowling, Virtual Bart More... Comedy Portal 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. 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] 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 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article appears to be written well.

2. Factually accurate?: Article is well referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article appears to cover all possible aspects.

4. Neutral point of view?: No sign of bias.

5. Article stability? No sign of edit wars.

6. Images?: Image given fair use rationale, but it may help with the use of 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) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)