Talk:The One with the Prom Video

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The One with the Prom Video 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.
October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The One with the Prom Video article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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 October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Aside from a few (very minor) syntax and typos that I corrected myself, the article was well written and an easy read. If you do any more expansion (and you should before WP:FAC, I would suggest getting an experienced copyeditor over here, first.

2. Factually accurate?: Cited to (13) good WP:RS sources, with proper WP:CIT formatting, nice job.

3. Broad in coverage?: As the contents show, major subsections include Plot, Production, Reception, Legacy. I would expand the plot a teensy bit before trying for FA, and if you can find any more sources for tidbits in Reception and Legacy, all the better too. But as is it looks good.

4. Neutral point of view?: Phrased in a neutrally worded manner.

5. Article stability? Article appears stable going back several months.

6. Images?: One image, with a good detailed fair use rationale given on the image page. If you could find a promotional poster specifically for this episode or something like that, that would be nice in the infobox.

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. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, a good article, and a pleasant read, thank you. As you go forward, make sure to submit for a Peer Review, as your article may expand and change, and as it does, get a copyeditors. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).