Talk:Duffless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Duffless 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 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	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.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-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.

Contents 1 Relevance? 2 Image 3 Minor points pre-GAC 4 Successful good article nomination

[edit] Relevance?

Why is it relevant that some fan grouping calling themselves the No Homers Club really liked this episode? Lots42 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Would it be possible if someone posted a more relevant picture for the infobox? The one currently there of Bart doesn't seem relevant enough. Andy120290 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean the one of Homer? The one of Bart at the bottom has a relevance, it is illustrating one of the cultural references. --Simpsons fan 66 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor points pre-GAC

1. Could use at least one more reference or 2 to expand Reception.Cirt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Expand the Lead/Intro a bit more.Cirt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Really nail down those image fair use rationales, by adding {{Non-free fair use rationale}}, in addition to what's currently at the image pages. Cirt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me from reading the page that a lot of what's in the production section are cultural references, I mean the Johnny Quest, Nixon and Blofled things could all easily be moved into the section below. Gran² 14:11, 12 February 2008 (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 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Appears to be well written, although it may be wise to carry out Gran²'s recommendations.

2. Factually accurate?: Aritcle is well referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Appears to cover just about everything.

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

5. Article stability? No recent sign of edit wars

6. Images?: Images are given fair-use rationale

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) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)