Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer's Enemy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Homer's Enemy

[edit]

The article is modelled after Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia. Any problems people have can be fixed. I know some will raise issue over the image GrimesInsanity.png, but I feel that it illustrates an important plot point in the episode. But, I would be willing to remove it should anyone have any large objections to it. -- Scorpion 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I love the episode but the prose in this article is deficient. The paragraph right before the lengthy Weinstein quote sounds particularly bad. Also, "Azaria felt that William H. Macy but in the end, Azaria provided the voice of Grimes," -- what? There is some repetitive language throughout that hampers the writing. Andrew Levine 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one word in that sentence. It is now fixed. Can you point out some examples of repetition? -- Scorpion 12:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we need the second picture? The first already gives us the idea of what the characters look like, so we can imagine how the one would have looked like when he went insane. Abyssinia, Henry and Homer's Phobia both have one picture. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fair use rationales aren't specific enough. They just say the image aides commentary of the episode. It should explain how the image aides in commmentary. Jay32183 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)  Done Jay32183 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — good work finding a notable episode to FA push (the Pokemon WikiProject needs to do that with their pokemon articles). Off topic, this is one of my favorite episodes of the Simpsong — if not the favorite. More later. — Deckiller 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support — 1a. Few examples:
    • "Frank Grimes, who makes his only appearance in this episode, would later be named one of the Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters by IGN." "would later be" should just be "was".
    • "One of the goals of the Oakley/Weinstein era was to include a couple episodes each season that "pushed the envelope conceptually"[4] and the idea of Homer's Enemy was first thought of by then-showrunner Bill Oakley who thought that Homer should have an enemy." a snake that should be chopped into two sentences, or separated by a semicolon. I'm a comma happy person, so I feel a comma should be inserted between "Oakley" and "who". Does the reference state "a couple"? If so, it the prose should say "two".
    • "Chief Wiggum's quote, "Ralphie, get off the stage sweetheart" is used as the chorus in the song "Ralph Wiggum" by the Bloodhound Gang." Missing a comma.
    • Most of these are minor glitches, but I highly recommend tweaking it up a bit more. — Deckiller 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a few issues:
      • "The result was Grimes, a man who had to work hard for everything and can't believe that Homer has so much yet does so little." Please avoid contractions.
      • "Declaring that he doesn't need safety gloves, he grabs some high voltage wires and is electrocuted to death." another use of contractions.
      • Still some sentences that could use commas.
      • "This then evolved into the concept of a "real world" character working alongside Homer, who he would either love or be driven crazy by." might read better as "This evolved into the concept of a "real world" character working alongside Homer, who he would either love or hate."
      • Some of the quotes use "s'" and not "s's", so it's best to go with the former (plus, it's more commonly used).
      • Formatting issues; no real need for a separate subsection for Frank Grimes.
      • "was named one of the Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters." Shouldn't "Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral character" be in italics or quotes?
      • I'll go ahead and give it a look. — Deckiller 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's looking much better; however, the synopsis section needs a bit more work. Is uses a bit too many adjectives (our plot summaries should be terse), and has a bit of excessive wikilinking. I'll go ahead and take a runthrough. — Deckiller 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added some inline queries. It's getting fairly close in my opinion. — Deckiller 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed to support, but the synopsis section has too many colorful words for my taste (summaries should be terse). — Deckiller 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as well Support. Needs copyediting.
  • The immediate plot description in the lead is a bit out-of-place, perhaps style it somewhat like here?
  • Link the production staff.
  • Everybody in attendance > The attendants.
  • ...acting like Homer Simpson - No point in adding his last name.
  • One reference can cover the entire first paragraph from "Production".
  • The producers had felt... - Doesn't flow with the subsequent sentence, change to The producers decided....
  • In 2006, IGN.com released a list of "The Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters". Grimes was ranked 17th and was the only one-time character to make the list - Combine the sentences.
  • ...the part should go to William H. Macy - change "part" to "role" per the previous sentence. Add "instead" for clarity. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Requirement for professional formatting. Why on earth are common dictionary terms linked? We do speak English. Foreclosure, pencils, salary.
    • With such little intellectual content, the writing had better be flash. Why, then, do I find things like: "Grimes's casket slowly lowers into the grave"—"is slowly lowered"? "electrocuted to death"—hello? "then-showrunner"—why a hyphen? "can not"? Better fix the whole thing, not just these examples. Tony 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Electrocuted to death" is important because simply being electructed eoesn't mean one is dead and is important to note that he was killed. -- Scorpion 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does say "he grabs some high voltage wires and is electrocuted to death", which is sloppily worded. Why not "he grabs some high voltage wires and dies." or "he grabs some high voltage wires, which causes his death." or something along the of "died by electocution" rather than "electrocuted to death"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 April 2007.
  • Support Oppose - Lead is an insufficent summary of the article. Also why does the statement "During the resulting funeral, Homer falls asleep, and in a drowsy state demands Marge change the TV channel, causing everyone laugh as the casket is lowered into the earth" require four inline cites, when the preceding passage has none. Ceoil 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a standard for Simpsons episode pages to have the summary citations at the very end of the synopsis. In other words, the citations are for the entire synopsis but are simply put at the end. As for the lead, I'll try to expand it. -- Scorpion 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good copyediting from people, greatly improving the article that otherwise was finished. A good job from all, so I support. Gran2 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. So many people have improved the prose and I can’t think of anything missing. --Maitch 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I have removed my support vote, because some people thinks it is part of some master plan from the Simpson Wikiproject. --Maitch 16:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as in previous Simpson articles. TV.com is not a reliable source, and IMO, neither is The Simpsons Archive. I know "fan consensus" will prevail, but still believe featured articles should be based on reliable sources, not "whatever we can find" that is written by fans and has no editorial oversight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? We only use TV.com as a source to show the fan response. Since it is a fan site, it only makes sense to use it. Same with the Simpsons Archive, although it is cited for the main plot. I will remove the source for the main site then. Either way, none of the production section or anything that needs sources comes from TV.com, IMDB or the Simpsons Archive only fan response. -- Scorpion 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the rationale for using those sources is fair enough to include them. — Deckiller 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectfully, I disagree. There are/can be other *reliable* sources for reporting critical response (for example, the EW article). We don't have to accept fan sites because that's all we have.
        • And, 1a, while I was reviewing again, I saw
          • In 2006, IGN.com released a list of "The Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters", in which they ranked Grimes at number 17; making him the only one-time character to appear in that list.[7]
        • Why the semi-colon? Has the article been copyedited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. Several times. The links are not being used "because there's nothing else", they are being used because we want to show fan response. Why do you need a reliable source for something as simple as use of a poll? Would a poll from EW or IGN be more reliable or something? IMDB and TV.com are good sites, they are just known for having some incorrect info, but I think citing polls is fine. -- Scorpion 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article's short, but to the point. Darrik2 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Well-written and well-cited. An enjoyable read. One comment/question. I looked at the IMBD link, and the score is 8.4/10, where in the article it is 8.3/10. I wonder if this is because people can still vote on that site, so the score will continually be changed. Is there some way to correct that, maybe putting "as of this date the score is ..."? Nathanalex 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's really not much exposition or coherence in Reception section: Instead of a discussion of the importance of the episode, or even an organized exposition of critical and popular reaction, it looks and feels a lot like a trivia section in paragraph form. At least make a little more of the sources you have, if you can't find others: The EW.com quote can be expanded (and expanded upon): "...If someone comes into this world, they leave it the same as it was before. It's just perfect." Academic resources you might be able to track down are mentioned here (paras. 8 and 9). I'm surprised that you're not mentioning how Groening and other staffers view of the episode as a line of demarcation between older viewers (who disliked) and newer ones (who loved it). Other issues:

  • I'm troubled by the referencing of the DVD commentary, which I mentioned in the peer review of Homer's Phobia. There is only one commentary, so why is it listed multiple times with different attributions? In all honesty, I'm unsure what the MOS says on the matter, but this doesn't seem quite right.
  • Oughtn't episode titles be in quotation marks instead of italics?
  • A separate subsection for casting is unnecessary, considering it consists of three sentences. You can smooth those sentences into perhaps any of the other in that section.
  • It might also be prudent to add IMDB as a citation for the plot summary, since it's a secondary sources, it's online but (I think) avoids the risk of being labeled a fansite.

I'd like to support this article, but as it stands, I can't.--Monocrat 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and taking care of the quotation marks. I've taken a closer look, and yes, the generation gap is mentioned. I had thought Groening was the one who mentioned it, so that slipped by me. My apologies. Your stance on plot summaries is new to me, but in either case it can't hurt to have a reliable secondary source when one is available. The reliability of IMDB is a more fundamental issue that I can't address, but it does indeed have a plot synopsis. Proceeding: the text of the article for the most part specifies whose views are what from the commentary. Why is the thus superfluous material then made to disrupt the referencing of a single source? (In general I think the current practice is a poor one. It seems to me that you should cite all of the commentary speakers in the References, or preferably cite none. An important book in my field was written by two authors who, in the introduction, apportion out roughly who wrote what chapters. I would never cite "Tullock (1962)" or "Buchanan (1962)" in text let alone something similar in the bibliography, even if drawing from only an apportioned chapter.) Also, there's no casting section in Homer's Phobia, and article structure should be flexible; my reading of the MOS is that sections (and articles a fortiori) proceed from actual content.--Monocrat 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With a plot summary that contains no analysis, the work of fiction itself is the most reliable source. Don't push for secondary sources for a rehashing of facts, and don't push for internet sources just because they're online. As a rule, go with the most reliable source that can be found, which, in this case, is the episode itself. Jay32183 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for Books and DVD commentaries is a little different. In a DVD commentary, you know exactly who is speaking and thus you can cite it. And there's no casting section in Homer's Phobia because there was no casting information to report. -- Scorpion 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a DVD commentary, you know who's speaking, yes. And as I said, I know who wrote what chapters in that book. What's the difference? They're both collaborative efforts, and should be treated as such. Just because I can attribute specifically doesn't mean I should. Note the speaker in the text, where that information is relevant, but make the citation general to the overall commentary. If you can provide more compelling reasons why the current practice is best-practice, I'll defer. Otherwise... At the very least, cut the duplicate information (can we agree it's duplicate?); and the best place to cut would be in the References. Regarding the plot synopsis: I don't think asking for the citation (which already exists in the article) is unreasonable or unactionable. Would it really be a burden or a weakness. Wikipedia in general favors secondary over primary sources, and past FACs have demanded and received citations to secondary sources for plot summaries. And IMDB cite doesn't have replace what you've got; a simple addition would suffice for me. An online citation is verifiable (provided the link works) and more convenient than watching the whole episode to fact-check. Regarding a Casting subsection: it's too short, in my estimation, to be a proper subsection, and Homer's Phobia arguably should have such a section if this article does: there's a guest star, and some discussion in the article and the commentaries of the guest star and his performance. Simply removing the heading would be fine. Ultimately, we're arguing over relative minutiae: the Reception section is still too weak.--Monocrat 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that we are following policy on the DVD citations, right? So in other words, your partially failing the article because we followed policy. If you read a few paragraphs above in this very FAC, you will read some complaints that we rely too heavily on sites like IMDB, IGN and The Simpsons Archive. -- Scorpion 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm objecting inappropriately, Raul will most likely pass you anyway. Besides, as I wrote before, we're arguing about minutiae, not the substantive complaint. I'm not questioning the reliability of IMDB in a plot summary; it's reliable as far as I'm concerned. If someone can make a case otherwise, that'd be different. It's really not a big deal: I just think it would make verification easier. Anyway, please provide a link for the DVD commentary policy; if it's policy, it's policy, and I'll probably have to defer, but it just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.--Monocrat 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, once you take out the plot and the direct quotations, there's so little there. Easy way to get a gold star .... Tony 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your point? It took a lot of work to get the article to the stage it is in right now. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't see how it could have been a lot of work, compared with that required for a more substantive article. Summarising a plot is kind of ... clerical—of questionable use to those who have seen the episode; those who haven't seen it will either not want to read the plot summary for fear of spoiling it for themselves, or will derive little from it, since there's no intellectual content to the summary - by that, I mean that it's purely factual: this happened then that happened then ..., rather than something more thoughtful that shows why it's "one of the darkest and most famous episodes", as claimed in the lead. There's no relating of the episode to the overall story arc/development throughout the series, and for those who know nothing of it, no explanation of the characters and settings. Are there deeper meanings? If so, we're still in the dark. I oppose the nomination on the basis that it doesn't exemply "our very best work", as required, and has trouble meeting 1c (not comprehensive) and 2a (inadequate lead—totally inadequate). Tony 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can only add as much as the sources allow and for us to add some of the content you suggested, ie. "deeper meanings" or an analysis would be from our interpretations and thus OR. -- Scorpion0422 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to build on Tony's comment about how this ep fits into the arc - a later episode featured Grimes's son, who, motivated by Grimes's death in this episode, attempts to kill homer. This should be mentioned in the article. Have there been any other in-series references to Grimes? (I haven't been watching the newest seasons so I can't say) Raul654 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There have been and the later show references to Grimes was mentioned in the article, but it was later deemed to be trivia and was removed. I could readd information about Grimes's legacy, but that ground is already covered in the Frank Grimes article. -- Scorpion0422 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homer%27s_Enemy&oldid=1145835448"