Talk:Beyond Blunderdome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Beyond Blunderdome has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed


Untitled[edit]

Can someone familiar with this episode edit the last few sentences? It isn't clear who 'they' refers to - it looks as if the studio execs swipe the Mad Max car, convince the family (the Simpson family, I suppose) to join them, and win (win what) but I doubt that this is the case. --Badger151 05:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this page mention the Shifty Eyed Dog?--Seth Turner 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

EVERY page should mention the Shifty Eyed Dog! But no, there's no reason to mention him. If he were used in many episodes and this happened to be his first appearance, maybe, but he was a one episode joke. Unnotable. 76.11.137.152 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn´t John Travolta a guest star, too? --Simpsonsonwiki (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, although he appeared he was voiced by one of the regular cast members (Dan Castellaneta I think) and not the real John Travolta. Gran2 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Anouncement[edit]

I've got the B.Blunderdome video in Ukrainian but I don't remember any shots when Gibson is holding an Oskar in his hands. Promotional artwork don't show the episode at all...--Anatoliy 024 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'll get a better picture within a day or two. CTJF83Talk 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Take from Ukrainian uk:Поза блискавицею. Choose one of four.--Anatoliy 024 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited this page a few months ago to add a animation 'goof' and now its removed. I just wanted to know if adding something like that was against protocol or anything? Jcrsn (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

YesY Done --Maitch (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

  • The 2nd sentence should have how the car was destroyed, as being run in the Springfield harbour.
  • A plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words per WP:TVPLOT guidelines. The current one is 483 words. I can't go into every detail of the episode. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Some things should be moved to an other paragraph.
  • The section follows the three act structure of the episode. I don't se why we should break that. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • ", run for it" should be changed. How about "runs away with the film."?
  • YesY Done --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wording should be changed alot.
  • Please be more specific. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Did myself. Simple copyediting doesn't make me a main contributor. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Production and themes[edit]

Nothing found.

Release and reception[edit]

Nothing found.

References[edit]

  • References 4 to 9 could be put into a general reference and distinguished by the timing and a word, like:
=== General references ===
* Scully, Mike (2008). Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". The Simpsons: The Complete Eleventh Season (DVD). 20th Century Fox.
=== References ===
^ Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". Event occurs at 13:01-13:07. 
^ Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". Event occurs at 1:49-2:10.
  • I see. I have made some changes based on your suggestions. However, I used some variation of the Harvard citation style that used the "cite video" template for consistency instead. --Maitch (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine by me.
  • I think that archiving reference 16 would be a good idea.
  • Ref 16 is a real newspaper, so I don't know what you mean by archiving it. --Maitch (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I might of forgot some things, so I'm putting this in 2nd opinion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The current split of references is somehow inconsistent: the shorthand footnotes are interleaved with ordinary references. The DVD comment separated gives the impression of being a primary source. I would suggest to split out the footnotes to a separate section (and possibly switch them to {{sfn}} for ease of access) and provide the references as a simple bullet list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Hold for 7 days. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have switched the citations to the Harvard style and moved the DVD commentaries below the references, so it does not appear as primary sources. --Maitch (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about the word Bibliography. Otherwise looks better IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed to Sources now. --Maitch (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that the prose has a room for improvement. Eg., the mention of "George Kennedy Airport" in the last paragraph of Production and themes is split in two sentences without any visible reason and is absolutely disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. Such things are supposed to be eliminated to pass 1a criterion. I hope Ebe123 can take time to look for the similar issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the George Kennedy thing. --Maitch (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I didn't dive in detail, overall seems OK to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Pass. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beyond Blunderdome. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)