":I also just looked this over at Steve Crossin's request, and have a few comments (both in response to the above and about the article proper):
According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be proportional to the article. A three-paragraph lead would be way too long for an article of this length. However, you still should try to include some more information there, as it is a bit short. Include a short bit on her appearances and the critical reaction as noted above.
Concept and creation section looks good now, well done.
Expand or merge the Characterization section into other sections. With it that short, it seems as though you would easily graft it into appearances unless there's more info to be added.
You've met GA Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 easily.
""She was once the most trusted advisor for the indecisive politician."" is unclear. Who are you referring to? (Characterization section)
The article seems a bit short (this is my issue with Criteria 3, broadness). You seem to have covered most of the important bases, but there's not a whole lot of information in each. Some of the sections also cover information that would be better places elsewhere (as previously noted, in addition to mentioning Smart's Emmys in ""Concept and creation"", it seems that would be better elsewhere or at least belongs in a subsection). Try working on how the article is laid out, and as Judgesurreal suggested, definitely use other articles as templates.
All in all, it looks pretty good, and would probably either pass or be an easily fixed-up ""on hold"" if nominated for GA now. Well done, just consider taking a look at those to guarantee things. Best of luck!  (//c) 

"