Self-nomination, "The Joy of Sect." - Actually, not so much a self-nomination as a collaborative team effort. I must say this has been one of my most pleasant experiences on the project so far, working with these other dedicated and talented editors, they've all been great. The article The Joy of Sect became a Good Article on October 27, 2007, and its Peer Review finished on November 2, and I got some good ideas from that as well. Since then, we have had several different copyeditors look over the article, none of whom had previously been involved in its editing and quality process. The article uses (20) cited sources, (6) images - three fair use with fair use rationales given on their image pages, and three free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. I now submit this article as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, as nom. Cirt 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC).
Support as GA reviewer. Article is well done and interesting. Alientraveller 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This statment -"The Joy of Sect" received generally positive reception in the press, and in books and analytical papers on The Simpsons.- seems a bit exagerated considering you don't have an aggregate review house, or at least enough reviews in the section to actually support the idea behind the statement. I'd simply just remove it, and merge those two weak paragraphs into one stronger paragraph. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Thank you, that reads better. Cirt 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Comment - Someone might want to summarize the lead a little better, specifically the second paragraph, which basically restates what's in the "Reception" section almost verbatim. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I shortened that 2nd paragraph a bit more. Cirt 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Support - Very interesting information and very nicely written. Good job Curt! ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose- Article reads more as an essay or an op-ed piece than an encyclopedic article. There is an underlying current in the article, such as the introduction of the term "new religious movements" in a context that is not present in the sources provided, that makes this article one that could have been written by an anti-cult advocacy group, rather than being an article about a deliriously funny parody on the subject. It also fails to attribute many of the comparisons made, stating these as facts rather than opinions. The use of real photos from groups labeled as "cults" is another example of this subtle but ever-present undercurrent. (Can you imagine a photo of Jesus crucified in the article Simpsons_Bible_Stories, or a photo of the Pope in The Father, The Son & The Holy Guest Star?). Not ready for prime-time, unless rewritten. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not ready yet.
There are still lots of punctuation errors, especially with regards to colons. I made a few changes, but I haven't combed through the entire article yet.
While taking Bart to the airport to see a local football team arrive after their defeat, Homer sees a man and a woman named Glen and Jane telling people about a new religion, the Movementarians. see...sees. More word variety.
Mr. Burns, learning that Movementarianism is gaining much popularity in Springfield, makes a new religion of his own. But the Springfieldians are convinced not to praise him as their new god when he catches fire. Some elaboration would be helpful. How does Burns catch on fire?
Lisa decides that getting good grades is important even though she knows it is stupid to say "The Leader" created everything Words like "stupid" just never sound right in an encyclopedia article.
There must be some negative criticism of this episode. I mean, it's the origin of "Jerkass Homer," right? Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Yes... another example is how Turner's book (Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation) has been carefully quote-mined for effect, missing important context such as the reference to the "Cult of Pop, a fast growing mutation ersatz religion that has filled the gaping hole in the West's social fabric where organized religion used to be." and "Further evidence of pop's quasi-religious status is at any rate not hard to find." (both of these are in the chapter dedicated to this episode, p.270) ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 21:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It also misses the fact that this episode is used by the Farmington Institute (UK) for Christian religious education: "The Joy of Sect: This lesson is appropriate for KS 3-4 studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject."≈ jossi ≈(talk) 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Same treatment has been applied in the article to Irwin, Sklobe and Conrad's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Home, about which the journal Christian Century, (Nov 21, 2001) says: One of the wittiest and most successful shows on TV has attracted some clever commentators. Mark Pinsky, a religion reporter for a daily newspaper, documents the many religious elements in the show, and also notes that religion and religious adherents are fondly observed as well as relentlessly mocked on The Simpsons. Like many fans, he is struck by the way the show, for all its cynicism about mainstream values, often ends up affirming community and family, even a family as wildly dysfunctional as Homer and Marge's. But Carl Matheson, in one of the probing essays collected by philosopher William Irwin and colleagues, thinks the heartwarming aspects of the show merely disguise moral emptiness and a withering "hyper-irony." The comedy is based "less on a shared sense of humanity than on a sense of world-weary cleverer-than-thouness." With its avalanche of one-liners and its knowing stream of allusions to popular culture, the show exists only to advance the cult of one-upmanship--to mock everything and everyone for the sake of the next laugh. All of these writers are right about one thing: the wit and the en durance of The Simpsons are worth pondering.
Clearly it is great to have good sources, but sound editorial judgment about how to use these sources for a neutral presentation of a subject, is also required. Just having many sources available does not a good article make... That book is used as a source to assert that "The authors noted that Marge's escape from the Movementarian cult commune illustrated her bravery, and they compared her values to those of Aristotle", is another example of pushing the editorializing a bit too far (read page 48 of that book to get a sense). The book is also used to support the very obvious WP:SYN, asserting that the book "took the opportunity to educate the reader not just about sects within the episode, but also about the methodology of cults on a broader level". This article is deserving of a serious re-write and maybe even a POV tag to boot. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Other dubious editorializing/ possible WP:SYN violations in the Themes section includes:
The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult" — when actually they do not use the term "new religious movement" or "cult" in that source. They use the term "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as "organized religion in general", which was conveniently removed from the cite: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." )
Key characteristics of cult techniques were pointed out and explained...
Emphasis on totalitarianism surrounding "the Leader" is seen through an analysis of the Movementarian's publications about him. For example, instead of traditional mathematics textbooks, the children on the compound learn from:" Arithmetic the Leader's Way and Science for Leader Lovers."
Thank you for pointing this out, I will attempt to address some of the above points. Cirt 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Sure, take your time. I have not revised how other sources have been used in the article, but these will all need to be revised at a certain point. Given the serious problems with the ones I checked, I do not think that we can assume that this is not pervasive throughout the article. Maybe an in-depth review is the best way forward. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions and personal input here are appreciated. I would also like to give time to see how others view the quality of this article at the present time. Evidently from above already, there are some that have differing viewpoints as to its present level of high quality. Cirt 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Yes, an FAC review is not done until it is done. The feedback is assessed in its entirety as later comments may have an impact on earlier ones. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: - You are incorrect about the A.V. Club use, see . The title of the segment on the episode is called: "11. Springfield joins a cult ("The Joy Of Sect," 1998)". I think we can safely say that since this is the title of the segment from the A.V. Club, that that is what they meant. Cirt 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
I have made my comments, which you are welcome to acknowledge or dismiss. That is up to you and other involved editors. The text says: The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult", which is an obvious WP:SYN violation. All you can say is "The A.V. Club described Springfield joining a cult" and then proceed to describe their use of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as referring to organized religion in general. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Well, I addressed that one point, which was easy enough, just quoted the exact name of The A.V. Club title of their segment, in the article. I will continue to try to work on some of the above more specific suggestions. Cirt 01:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really done... You forgot, again, to add the mention of organized religion in general. The full quote: The episode also references shadowy sects such as Scientology, the Moonies, the M.O.V.E. group, and organized religion in general: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday."≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And this text that you edited, is again, WP:OR: However, the A.V. Club also noted the ambiguity of the term "cult", quoting Bart from the episode: "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." The AV club does not address any ambiguity at all. I do not understand what is the need for editorializing in that manner. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - More specific, removed "ambiguity" reference, added "organized religion" reference, and simply quoted from the Bart quote. Cirt 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
I think I have said enough already about this article, this page not being a discussion page for the article in question but an assessment of its state to become a Featured article. My opinion remains that it requires considerable work before re-submitting. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion, and your input with us. As you can see, both Scorpion0422 (talk·contribs) and myself have begun to implement some of your changes. As we address some of the other suggestions from above, I will note them here, below. Cirt 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Added the Farmington Trust citation to the article, as suggested from above. Cirt 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Yes, we all share input and opinions in these reviews. While you are it, you may consider adding the necessary context about the Farmington Trust. You missed the most important bit "studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject." Without it, your text does not mean much. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - I added that exact quote, it's already there in the article. Cirt 02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - I changed "Key characteristics of cult techniques were pointed out and explained... " to "Key recruitment techniques used by the Movementarians were pointed out and explained" - upon a suggestion from above. Cirt 02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Added: Planet Simpson also notes the Simpson family's chant at the end of the episode, as evidence of a "Cult of Pop", which the book describes as the "true high-growth quasi-religious cult of our time." -- to the "Themes" section, on a suggestion from above. Cirt 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Changed: "In The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, the authors cited "The Joy of Sect" in analyzing Marge Simpson's virtuous personality traits. The authors noted that Marge's escape from the Movementarian cult commune illustrated her bravery, and they compared her values to those of Aristotle." to: In The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, the authors cited "escaping from a cult commune in 'The Joy of Sect'" as evidence of "Aristotle's virtuous personality traits in Marge." - using actual quotes from the book, to stay tighter to the source text. Upon suggestion from above. Cirt 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - I took out the sentence: "Emphasis on totalitarianism surrounding "the Leader" is seen through an analysis of the Movementarian's publications about him.", and instead replaced it with - The Psychology of the Simpsons writes that "the Leader" is seen as an authority figure, because "He has knowledge or abilties that others do not, but want." - Per a suggestion from above to remove that prior sentence. Cirt 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Support Curt, good writing. Jossi...your name sounds familiar, btw. Can't quite place it. I've seen his edits above and can't find fault with his research, approach to the topic, or flow. Jossi...Jossi...Where have I heard that name before. Someone refresh my memory. Anyway, strong support. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was the first one to welcome you to Wikipedia (see your talk page), and you left a message on my talk page on your fifth day in Wikipedia baclk in August: . You can always ask directly rather than asking "someone" :) ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Upon suggestion from above, changed usage of The Psychology of the Simpsons: D'oh! book. Removing the sentence: "took the opportunity to educate the reader not just about sects within the episode, but also about the methodology of cults on a broader level". - and replaced instead with a direct quote from the book itself. Cirt 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
More issues: This text: "Planet Simpson also notes the Simpson family's chant at the end of the episode, as evidence of a "Cult of Pop", which the book describes as the "true high-growth quasi-religious cult of our time" is another example of editorializing. The book used as a source makes two different statements which the editor of the article conflated into one by mistake. Page 42 of the book has two different statements, the first one:
"We are watching Fox" they chant. As 5F23 ends, there is little doubt of the the identity of the the true high-growth quasi religious cult of our time.
...which clearly refers to Television.
The second statement is from a paragraph down the page:
It is not just TV—although with one study estimating that the average American TV is on for seven hours a forth minutes each day, TV's certainly a primary pulpit for many of this cult's major deities. But beyond the chattering household cyclops, there are a host of other demigods and churches in the pantheon. There are movies and video games, musicians and authors, sports teams and fashion designers. This is the great and good Cult of Pop, a fast growing mutation ersatz religion that has filled the gaping hole in the West's social fabric where organized religion used to be.
It is this disregard for staying close to the sources and the indulging in dubious editorializing that worries me about this article. Or is it maybe a lack of attention to detail in the rush to get this article to FA status? As said before, all sources in that article will need to be verified as it pertains to their use ain the article text. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - I split the above referenced sentence into two separate sentences - one referring to the "Cult of Pop", and the other referring to the Television analysis. Thanks for pointing that out. Your opinions about "dubious editorializing" are noted, and we are working on addressing specific points that you bring up, as you may note from above. Cirt 23:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
It is great that these things are getting fixed, but given the problems that were identified, would not be wise to do a thorough check of the article and resubmitting at a later date? I do not think I should invest all my wiki-time this week to check all other sources. That is for editors that want this article to be a FA to do. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that there are other editors above that disagree with you, and feel that the article is currently of a high quality at present time, and not "editorialized", as you put it, I think it is best at this point in time to let the FA run its course, and hopefully get some input from other editors that have not yet voiced their own opinions on this FAC page. Cirt 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Hmmmm.... How can these editors disagree with me? My concerns where raised after their comments. In any case, this would be for the FAC director to assess. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it would certainly be for the FAC director to assess. However, I am simply stating that the majority of the text in this FAC so far has been from one editor. It would simply be interesting to wait and see what other editors think of the article's quality status at the present time. Cirt 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Sure, no problem. My concerns are hopefully well presented already. I would also argue that there is a need for some quality time to elapse between getting GA status to applying for FA review. A few days (in this case just a week) may not be enough for an article to get to a stage that is worth presenting to FAC. Not all GA articles are worth to be FAC, and those that do may need further work before submitting to FA review. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And yet more issues: This text The book noted that an exploitation of group mentality is used during the six-hour Movementarian indoctrination film, in which those who get up to leave are reminded that they are allowed to leave whenever they wish . There is no mention of "exploitation of group mentality" in that book, again a too free hand in editorializing. I think that the article should be delisted from GA, so that the material in the article can be re-assessed against the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Addressed Jossi (talk·contribs)'s suggestion, from above, re: the "groupthink" reference. Changed it to a direct quote from the book, so there is no ambiguity here:
The book noted the techniques used during the six-hour Movementarian recruitment film, in which those who get up to leave are reminded that they are allowed to leave whenever they wish. They are, however, questioned in front of the group as to specifically why they wish to leave, and these individuals end up staying to finish watching the film. This spotlight is then described as "subtle pressure," in contrast to the "razor wire, landmines, angry dogs, crocodiles and evil mystery bubble Marge confronts to escape, while being reminded again that she is certainly free to leave.
Jossi (talk·contribs) -- All I am noting is that you have made (29) out of the total (64) edits or so to this FAC page. It might be helpful for you to take a break, take a breather for a bit, and let other individual editors provide some input here. As you can see, your suggestions have been noted and implemented into the article. But it might be a good idea to step back abit and allow others the chance to voice their opinions as well. Cirt 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
This is a wiki, so others are not impeded to post their opinions as well, and by the look of it my 29 comments to this FAC review have removed problems that no one found before. Stepping back is needed in edit wars or when the edit gets hot, which is obviously not the case here. (A "thank you," rather than a "go away" would have been more appropriate here, don't you think?) In any case I have already made my point, and despite the fixes you made to the problems I found, the use of all other sources will need to be checked as well on the same basis and in the same manner given the concerns raised. There are 20 sources in the article, and only a couple have been checked. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Jo, I wanna work on this article with Curt and Scorp, and just watching the exchange above, I need some breathing room, please. I think if you stepped back and looked, it seems as though you have some real feelings about this article. I dunno if it's the Simpsons or the topic, but it does look like an edit war. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You can edit the article to your heart's content. This page is not an article, but a discussion about the status of the article to be considered for featured article. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, no one is asking you to "go away", that was your own personal interpretation. Merely to step back and take a break, take a breather, and allow others to post their personal opinions as you have done. Cirt 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
My comments were neither "opinions" nor "suggestions". They were all factual problems with the article, mainly poor use of sources, misinterpretation of sources, original research violations dressed up as representation of sources, and other poor scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the section, and I'm not sure what you're concerns are. I have read several of the books, and the subjects there are discussed in them. I'll admit that the section is rather disorganized, but I don't think it's as bad on the OR as you claim it is. -- Scorpion0422 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not now, Scorpion, as the most obvious problems have been identified and corrected. My concern is about the other sources that have not checked. Basically, how can one trust now that the other sources used in the article have not been misrepresented? Can we safely assume the other sources have not been misinterpreted? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
But under your logic, almost every single article relating to religion or with any kind of analysis/themes section would be unable to reach FA status due to those concerns. -- Scorpion0422 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not true, Scorpio. An article is an article is an article, and the requirements for FAC status are the same regardless of subject. I am not arguing that this article cannot get to FA status, it surely can. But it needs to be revised against the sources with a fine tooth comb, given the problems found already. After that is done, it can be re-submitted for review again. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
My argument is that, given the few sources I checked which where not accurately represented, we cannot assume that other sources used have been accurately represented. Thus, my call for a thorough review, and a later re-submission. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am glad you started this out with My argument is that, because all along this is your own opinion about the use of these sources and their accurate representation in the article. Your suggestions have been implemented and I did not raise any objections to your interpretation of the sources, however they are still your own opinions about them, and your own opinions do not denote "fact" and are not a ruling about actual "problems" - merely your own perceptions about the use of the sources themselves. Cirt 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
<<<<< I have made my arguments, and do not see the need to repeat them. I leave this discussion now with the satisfaction that my comments have, if anything, made this article closer to being worthy of the FA star, specifically about criteria (c) in one of the sections. In this regards, my view remains that other sections of the article would also benefit from a thorough check for assessing if it accurately represents the sources used or not. Good luck with the article, and if any of the involved editors want to engage me in discussing further aspects of this article, please ping me on my talk. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My thanks go out to Bignole (talk·contribs), for your wise words on both my and Jossi (talk·contribs)'s talk page about ending this back and forth discussion, which was taking up 84% of the FAC page. Thank you Bignole, much appreciated. I think we have both gotten your message, and I will continue to address concerns if other editors bring them up here. I am glad that Jossi stated above: "I leave this discussion now with the satisfaction that my comments have, if anything, made this article closer to being worthy of the FA star, specifically about criteria (c) in one of the sections." That is appreciated. Cirt 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
Comment What are "embedded references to popular culture"? How are they different from regular references to popular culture? Zagalejo^^^ 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the following sentence could use some elaboration: In Ned Flanders's rumpus room, Marge brings back her children by promising them hover-bikes, which turn out to be fake.Zagalejo^^^ 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a crack at rewording it. Is it better? -- Scorpion0422 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should have been more clear. The last part ("which turn out to be fake") is what seems vague to me. I haven't watched this episode in a while, so I honestly don't remember exactly what happens in that scene. Zagalejo^^^ 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Addressing some of Zagalejo (talk·contribs)'s points, I removed the word "embedded" the sentence works fine without it, and I changed the "hover-bikes" sentence, using a dash instead of a comma, improves readability a tad. If this is still unclear, we can break it up into two sentences, explaining exactly what Marge did. Cirt 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the hoverbikes thing is still somewhat vague. Did Marge merely say she had hoverbikes? Did she tempt the kids with something that looked/sounded like a hoverbike... ? Zagalejo^^^ 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - I added a 2nd sentence, to make that portion more clear. Cirt 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
Our discussion of the Mr. Burns subplot seems kind of tacked on. Is there a better way to mention it without ruining the flow of the "Plot" section?
The children initially resist brainwashing, but Glen and Jane have their ways: Bart is taken by their Li'l Bastard Brainwashing Kit; Lisa decides that getting good grades is important even though she disagrees with saying that "The Leader" created everything; and Maggie is brainwashed by Barney the Dinosaur. Two comments: 1) Some explanation of what the "Lil' Bastard Brainwashing Kit" actually is might be useful. Even casual fans may not recognize that "Lil' Bastard" is a running gag on the show. 2) It might be nice to describe the Movementarian school system in slightly more detail before describing how Lisa was brainwashed. Just for clarity's sake.
Marge then regrets that he was telling the truth; Lovejoy throws his collar on the ground and stomps on it. When I first read this, I thought that "he" referred to Homer. Unclear pronoun antecedent.
Is it Fox or FOX? we use both in the article.
I have to run now, but I'll have more to say later.Zagalejo^^^ 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Expanded the section on Mr. Burns as the leader of his own new religious movement, per suggestion from Zagalejo (talk·contribs). Will work on the other three suggestions as well. Cirt 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Expanded the plot section with an explanation of the "Lil' Bastard Brainwashing Kit", as well as an explanation of how Lisa was brainwashed. Trying not to make the plot too long with all these new explanations, but you're right, a little clarity for the reader is a good thing. Cirt 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Marge then regrets that he was telling the truth; - Replaced the pronoun here with "The Leader", for clarity. Cirt 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Replaced instances of "Fox" in the article with "FOX" - except inside of the citations that refer to "20th Century Fox", in that case I think it's okay to leave it as is. Cirt 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
Supportnow, and after the substantial corrections that have been made since the nomination, and thanks to the work of all involved, the article is in good shape, so I change my comment to support. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Some more comments I've been fiddling around with the prose, and I'll probably be fiddling with it for at least a few more days, so any comments or questions about that are welcome. In the meantime, here are some content related issues:
Is the Rover actually a "vehicle", as described in the lead?
I noticed that I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide notes that the episode is "another one where the central joke isn't strong enough to last the whole episode". I think we should include that quote in the reception section, since it'd be nice to mention some criticism of the episode. Zagalejo^^^ 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The Rover is discussed in more detail at the article on Rover (The Prisoner). I don't think this particular article would be a good place to get into great detail on that, simply to say that there was a reference to it is enough, we don't want to get too descriptive and tangential. Cirt 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
We don't really have to add any more details about it; I was just wondering if "vehicle" is the proper term to use. Zagalejo^^^ 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears per the article Rover (The Prisoner), that yes, it is. I suppose "device" or "security device" would also work. Cirt 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
Done, added the quote from I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, as suggested above by Zagalejo (talk·contribs). Cirt 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
Another comment Here's something that shouldn't be too hard to fix. I noticed in the "Themes" section that we switch back and forth between the present tense and the past tense. When you're talking about the content of books, you generally use the present tense. Zagalejo^^^ 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Changed most of the tenses to present tense, left, I think one reference in past tense, but it actually reads okay. Cirt 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
Support — Well written, well referenced. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
I think this is misleading (from the lead): Homer and Bart are initially introduced to a pair of young Movementarians recruiters in an airport. They both become brainwashed, and Homer moves his family into the cult compound. The way the sentences are organized, you'd think that Homer and Bart were brainwashed before the whole family moved to the compound. In fact, Bart wasn't brainwashed until later.
I don't think we're always clear that O'Donnell is merely the credited writer. That seems to be an important point to make, since three other writers had a substantial role in building this episode. Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Addressed one point - fixed intro sentence, it's only Homer that becomes brainwashed at first, the rest of the family don't get brainwashed til after they move into the cult compound. Cirt 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Addressed second point - Made it clear that Steve O'Donnell was the lead writer on the episode, not just the only writer. Cirt 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
There are still tense problems in the "Themes" section. A sentence like "Key recruitment techniques used by the Movementarians were pointed out and explained..." should be in the present tense; we're describing the contents of a book. (That sentence is rather awkward, anyway. Recast it in the active voice, and find a single-word replacement for "pointed out".)
I'm also concerned about the general organization in the "Themes" section. None of the paragraphs (except for the last) have a clear, unifying idea. They're just hodgepodges of quotes from different books, and they're somewhat difficult to read. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much I'd be able to do with that section myself, since I only own the Turner book.
What exactly is the "Farmington Trust", as mentioned in the "Reception" section? Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay, okay, I will address these three more points, from above, and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
I hope you can appreciate that we have done a lot of work on the article itself, and it's been improved significantly due to your many above suggestions. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
I know you've been working hard, and I don't mean to discourage you. I just think certain things could still be better. Zagalejo^^^ 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Bobby Wills, who has died aged 86, founded the Farmington Trust, which supports the teaching of religious education, and was a well-known figure in west of England sporting circles. Wills started the Trust in 1965 to support, encourage and improve Christian education in schools, colleges and universities. By enabling teachers and ministers of religion to take a sabbatical at university, it has played an important part in the professional development of many, and has helped to transform religious education into one of the fastest growing disciplines in the school curriculum.
Done - Modified the "Farmington Trust" sentence to address the 3rd of the recent points made by User:Zagalejo. Will address the other points shortly. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - I recast the sentence discussed above by User:Zagalejo, into the active voice, and found a better replacement for "pointed out". Cirt (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
As to the point by Zagalejo about the "Themes" section, I think the progression is fine. The first paragraph is simply the various "new religious movements" spoofed in the episode, as analyzed in secondary sources. The second explains the psychology and tactics used by the Movementarians, and the third, you already said was fine. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
Well, maybe someone else will chime in. I still think they're kind of unfocused. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph has nothing to do with what follows. (And is that all The Simpsons and Philosophy says about the episode? If so, then we probably don't need to discuss that book at all.)
The prose in the "Themes" section also needs more streamlining. Look at this sentence, for example: The A.V. Club analyzes the group in the episode in a piece called "Springfield joins a cult" and then describes The Simpsons portrayal of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups," and notes that the episode discussed Scientology, Heaven's Gate, the Unification Church, and organized religion in general, quoting Bart as saying, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." That could probably be as many as three separate sentences. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence preceding that one needs some work, too: Similar concepts utilized by the "Sect" in the episode and Scientology include similarities in physical appearance between "The Leader" and L. Ron Hubbard, references to a Sea Org uniform, a "Trillion year labor contract" instead of the Sea Org's Billion year contract, and the use of litigation in both groups. Are the "similarities in physical appearance between "The Leader" and L. Ron Hubbard" a "concept"? Are "references to a Sea Org uniform" a "concept"? Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will address these issues by Zagalejo, from above, and note them here, below, shortly. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - I split a sentence apart into 2 sentences, from a suggestion from Zagalejo (talk·contribs), above. Will address the 2nd point. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - I addressed the second point from Zagalejo (talk·contribs), you're right, the word "concepts" did not work here, fixed up the syntax in that sentence a bit. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
OK, thanks. I think we could elaborate on this a little bit: Planet Simpson discusses The Simpsons' approach to deprogramming in the episode, and contrasts it with the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" used in the episode "Burns' Heir." We should try to summarize what the book says about deprogramming. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I will take a second look at the information in that book and revisit that sentence shortly. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Added some more info from Turner's Planet Simpson to explain the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" bit. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Inconsistent placement of final punctuation before/after closing quotation marks. MOS insists on the logical method: after (unless you need to make a point that this is part of the quotation). Please fix throughout. Tony(talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you are correct, should all be after, as per MOS, I usually use after, so not sure why this is the case, but I will fix it. Cirt (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
Done - Thanks for mentioning that. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
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.