# Talk:Tracy Flick

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tracy Flick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Review
I have reviewed this article and I'm as satisfied as I can be that it meets the Good Article requirements.
It is clear and concise and is not biased towards anything.  There are plenty of references and nothing in the article that I can see that would possibly be challenged.  I propose to leave this review open for a few days to allow comments before making my final decision on this article. --5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; glad to hear it passed muster! Propaniac (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome.  I'm going to leave this open for a few days in case anyone has any comments that they wish me to take into consideration.  If there's no response within a few days then I don't see why it shouldn't be graded as a good article :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am about to pass Tracy Flick as a good article for the reasons listed above.  It is clear and concise and unbiased.  Nothing in the article can be challenged that I can see as everything is referenced and cited where it needs to be.  The only suggestion I can make to improve the article is before you edit it, make sure your edits aren't mentioned elsewhere.  Tonight I moved part of the intro as it was already touched upon elsewhere in the article --5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my drive-by comment, but I reverted your previously mentioned edit, 5 albert square, because it goes against the Manual of Style, particularly WP:LEAD; the lead or introductory section of an article is meant to summarize the article as a whole, so repetition is of course necessary. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From the lede:

"Tracy is a smart, ambitious high school student"
I think the author and filmmakers were going more for a political form of Savant Syndrome than intelligence. - Richfife (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tracy Flick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202121836/http://defamer.com/5065090/tina-fey-on-sarah-palin-not-since-sling-blade-has-there-been-a-voice-like-hers to http://defamer.com/5065090/tina-fey-on-sarah-palin-not-since-sling-blade-has-there-been-a-voice-like-hers
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725110836/http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1567506/20070820/story.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1567506/20070820/story.jhtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913191027/http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b3095_creepiest_movie_bad_guys_our_top_9.html to http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b3095_creepiest_movie_bad_guys_our_top_9.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This section is a prime example of the kind of garbage dump that many articles have tacked on to the bottom of them. Under names like In popular culture or In the media or Trivia, a lot of weakly sourced, random factoids get tossed into the grab bag. I've deleted some of the obvious cruft and tagged it with {{Trivia section}}. Everything in the section needs to be moved somewhere else if it is relevant. Either to another section of this article or another article altogether. Otherwise, delete it. Garbage dumps at the end of your article are bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)