Talk:Nancy Cartwright/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nice job! These shouldn't take long to address:

Early life:

• "every Sunday I’d take a 20-minute bus ride to his house in Beverley Hills for a one-hour lesson and be there for four hours [...] They had four sons, they didn’t have a daughter and I kind of fitted in as the baby of the family." Is "fitted" the word used in the quote from the book, or is it "fit"? If it's fit, please fix it. If it's fitted, you should add a [sic] to this because unless I'm mistaken, it's grammatically incorrect.
  • It's from this article, and that is the exact wording they used. Added a sic tag.

The Simpsons:

• "Bart was described as "television's king of 1990",[9] "television's brightest new star"..." Generally, even with partial quotes, you should try to attribute it to somebody. Can you say who, or what publication, exactly said these first two blurbs?
  • Removed the first, attributed the second.

Further career:

• "For the role of Rufus, Cartwright did a lot of research for the role, because she felt that she had to know what she was talking about." I was wondering if you could expand this just a little bit to make it more specific. Did she do research on what naked mole rats sound like for the role? Or (I'm guessing more likely) did she just research the animal in general because she felt an obligation to be knowledgeable about them?
  • More of the latter actually. Is it better now?

• "My Life as a 10-Year-Old Boy was adapted into a similarily titled one-woman play in 2004." Is it a similarly titled play, or the same title? If the same, please specify that. If it's different, please include the play's title.
  • No, it's the exact same title. I removed the bit about similarily titled.

Just to make sure:

• I see there was a lot of discussion about the Scientologist robocalls. That appears to be resolved now, is that the case? The article must be stable (i.e., no edit wars) in order to pass as GA.
  • Nope, no recent edit wars. I'm actually surprised at how stable the article was during that and that it didn't even need to be semi protected.

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focus without unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral: Check.
5. Stable: Check.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Check.

Pass. Nice work. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)