- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Any suggestions for improvement (especially in-universe clean-up) would be fine. Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I just reviewed Barney Gumble and thought I would continue on a Simpsons kick. This is more substantial as an article, but I still do not think this is yet at GA level, let alone FA, but there is a good start here.
- Lead does not meet WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - but the reference to "Blame it on Lisa" is only there (and why not identify the episode)? Since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- Article needs many more references - for example, the whole Rivalry with Shelbyville section has no refs or there are some direct quotations without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- I also worry some of the refs do not meet WP:RS - what makes ABout.com a reliable source, for example?
- The article is written chiefly from an in-universe perspective and should be written more from an out of universe persepctive. Most of the refs are directly from the Simpsons episodes or DVDs. What have critics said about Springfield? The stuff people associated with the show say about the city is good, but there has to be more. See WP:IN-U.
- People and culture section is very listy - if this ever goes to FAC it will need to be converted to prose.
- There are many one or two sentence short paragraphs and sections. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.
- Avoid needless repetition - the Ned Flanders' quote on Ohio, Nevada, Maine and Kentucky is given at least twice (and is not cited one of those times)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)