Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons

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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

The Simpsons[edit]

  • First FAC
  • Second FAC
  • Third FAC
  • FARC; if repromoted, re-categorize at WP:FFA, has not been on main page

The page was improved considerably since it was delisted, and has since been improved and copyedited by many different users. A few days the page was nominated by a random user, and I felt it wasn't ready then, but we have since improved it so we figured it was worth a try. Any concerns that people have will be addressed by myself or Gran2. -- Scorpion0422 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I haven't re-read the article, but my concerns at FARC were 1) sloppy referencing and 2) the External link farm. The current references look clean and reliable, and the External link farm is gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I didn't scrutinize the references, but read through the text. It's highly informative, has well-proportioned sections linking to daughter articles, and quality prose. I could've looked harder for errors, but I'm confident that any I missed would only be minor and easily fixable. bobanny 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above. ISD 07:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Of course --A cool night green owl 07:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it has been a strong article for a long time, and this has more love and care invested in it than any of the FA/GA Simpsons episode articles. Alientraveller 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support had a read and corrected a few typo's a very comprehensive, well-referenced article. Well done to all who contributed--Hadseys 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - outstanding article that has come a long way! --Naha|(talk) 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Love it! Ive read this article and it definitely is FA status! EvilHom3r 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great job! --Esprit15d 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose - Reading this article was a pleasure, but there remain several grammar and copyediting things that do need addressing:[reply]
  • There should be a better transition between these two sentences, "Its success prompted Fox to reschedule the series to compete with The Cosby Show, a move that hurt the ratings of The Simpsons.[12] Ullman later filed a lawsuit, claiming that her show was the source of the series' success. The suit said she should receive a share of the profits of The Simpsons—a claim rejected by the courts," since initially, it sounds like Ullman's lawsuit had something to do with the scheduling change.  Done
  • "Two male actors" - There are two male actors...  Done
  • "Celebrity guest stars often play" - "Celebrity guest stars have often played"; the latter half of the sentence necessitates the use of present perfect.  Done
  • "As the show's revenue..." - the connector "as" makes it seems like this is a chronological continuance, when this is actually a new event. I would preface that sentence with "On another occasion", "in XXXX" or something equally fitting.  Done
  • "consists of 16 writers" - spell out sixteen  Done
  • "developed the show since season one" - Season One should be capitalized  Done
  • "with 60 episodes" - spell out sixty  Done
  • "the run of animated short" - "the run of the animated short"  Done
  • "season four, Gracie Films" - capitalize Season Four  Done
  • "the show as of December 2006" - is this the most up to date info?  Done
  • "After season 13, production" - spell out and capitalize Season Thirteen  Done
  • "paint during season twelve's episode" - you know the drill  Done
  • "We [The show]" - is there a reason why "The" is capitalized? If not, lowercase it.  Done
  • "writers' evince an appreciation" - remove the apostrophe  Done
  • "makes jokes from across the political" - remove "from"  Done
  • "government and big business as" - capitalize Big Business  Done
  • "The director of The Simpsons told Castellaneta to shorten the noise so that it became the well known exclamation in the TV series." - It is doubtful he would know this in advance. The sentence should read something closer to this, "The director of The Simpsons told Castellaneta to shorten the noise, so that it became and it went on to become the well-known exclamation in the TV series.  Done
  • "of sight gags and does not use" - "of sight gags and did not use" - As is, the first half of the sentence is present tense, and the second half past. It should be all past.  Done
  • " 20th century's" - Century should be capitalized  Done
  • "marks the 20th anniversary" - spell out twentieth  Done
  • "With its 19th year" - spell out nineteenth  Done
  • " of 20 produced" - same deal  Done
  • "until its 29th season" - ditto  Done
  • "a top-10 episodes list" - it should read "a top-ten list of episodes"  Done
  • "a top-15 list" - "a top-fifteen list"  Done
  • "among the worst, so season four looks" - Season Four  Done
  • "Despite this criticism, The Simpsons has managed to maintain a large viewership and attract new fans. However, the first season had an average of 13.4 million viewers in the US, compared to the 17th season, which ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers." - Two problems: (1) The sentences appear to contradict each other. The second sentence should begin with something like "Despite this,..." or "Even still,..." (2) The second sentence is grammatically wrong - the first season had 13.4 million viewers whether you compare it to the seventeenth season or not (the current wording insinuates otherwise). The first sentence should be followed by something like "Despite this fact, there has been a decline in viewership. While the first season enjoyed an average of 13.4 million viewers per episode in the US, the seventeenth season ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers."  Done
  • "it a billion dollar merchandizing" - billion-dollar should be hyphenated  Done
  • Remove this sentence "Music is featured in The Simpsons, with characters breaking into song during the course of the series." it is jarring since it doesn't talk about merchandise, and is actually redundant; if original music is sold, then it must have appeared on the show.  Done
  • "seasons 1–9 have" - "seasons one through nine have"  Done
  • "Seasons 1–7 have also" - Seasons one through seven have also"  Done
  • "one after the first season, and the other still available" - huh? Maybe try: "One that was available briefly after the first season, and another that was produced in XXXX and is still available for purchase"? This is just a fragment as is.
  • "various difficulties (comma) such as lack of a suitable story and an already fully engaged crew of writers (comma) delayed the project"  Done
  • "The Simpsons film released on" - "The Simpsons that was film released on"  Done
  • "It opened at the top of the international box office (comma) taking $96 million from 71 overseas territories (double dash) including $27.8 million in the United Kingdom, making it Fox's second highest opening ever in the country."  Done
Note how these issues have been resolved, and alert me on my talk page.--Esprit15d 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the issues have been addressed. -- Scorpion0422 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The article looks much better than it has in the past. I have a few comments, however.
  • Is it necessary to mention Snowball II and Santa's Little Helper in the opening paragraph? They've been the stars of, what, four episodes? Moe, Apu, Krusty, Grandpa, etc, are far more important secondary characters, but they're not mentioned anywhere in the lead.
  • Are all of the references correct? Double-check reference 14, for example. I'm not sure how that relates to anything in the "Origins" section. (There may be a few other problems; I haven't looked at every reference yet.)
  • Cool. I'll try to look through the other refs. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable saying that the show has a liberal bias, regardless of what Al Jean has claimed in the past. John Swartzwelder, the show's most prolific writer, is definitely not a liberal, and the show has fequently lampooned liberal leaders and liberal causes. (And I'm not some right-wing nut, in case you were wondering; I just think we should strive for a more complete and accurate description of the show.)
  • The entire paragraph says "Some commentators say the show is political in nature and susceptible to a left-wing bias. Al Jean admitted in an interview that "We [the show] are of liberal bent." The writers evince an appreciation for progressive ideals, but the show makes jokes across the political spectrum". So, it doesn't just say Liberal bias. -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I guess it's not as bad as I thought. Would it be OK to change the third sentence to say, "The writers often evince an appreciation for progressive ideals"? Or something along those lines? That would probably assuage my concerns. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The show portrays government and Big Business as taking advantage of the little guy. I think "Big Business" and "little guy" are too informal for an encyclopedia article. (These two terms are also Al Jean's exact words, as quoted in Planet Simpson, but the article does not make this clear.)
  • Is this better? "The show portrays government and large corporations as taking advantage of the common worker"? -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. Is "as" necessary, though? I'm not sure if the sentence sounds better with or without it. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence was somewhat awkward, so I changed it to "The show portrays government and large corporations as somewhat evil entities that take advantage of the common worker". -- Scorpion0422 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrighty. If someone can replace "somewhat evil" with a strong, single-word adjective, I'll cross off that concern. Zagalejo 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "malevolent", or is it too strong of a word? -- Scorpion0422 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd use "malevolent" to describe Mr. Burns, but we might want an adjective that could also apply to characters like the Big Rich Texan or the Laramie Cigarettes guy. How do you feel about "callous"? Zagalejo 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about capitalist enterprises?
  • I've changed it to callous. Gran2 10:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have more to say later. A lot of hard work has gone into this article, but there are still a few minor things to hammer out. And I don't think this should be promoted until someone really tough, like Tony, has a look at it. There are a lot of supporters, which is unsuprising, but this isn't a popularity contest. We need to look at the article critically so that it's the best article we can produce. Zagalejo 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is (was) reference 14? Some sort of blog related linkspam, so I've replaced it. Gran2 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the list above (now checked as done) to spell out some numbers greater than 10; please refer to WP:MOSNUM and revisit all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done and done. -- Scorpion0422 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry for any confusion. I was more of the school that spells out any words that are one- or two-word numbers, which that policy also mentions (eg - I have a hundred dogs out back.). But the only Wikipedia hard-fast rule is to spell out numbers under ten, otherwise it is opinion. I hope this didn't cause to much added work.--Esprit15d 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm going away for a week starting Sunday, so Gran2 will take over the FAC for the remainder. -- Scorpion0422 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments Why is reference 7 attributed to Chris Turner? I don't see his name anywhere in the link. Also, the link in reference 32 isn't working. Zagalejo 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both fixed. Gran2 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome. Anything you can do with ref #71? That one isn't working, either.Zagalejo 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: Ref 14 (Turner pg. 131) is used to cite the claim that conservatives viewed Bart as a bad role model. However, that specific page in Planet Simpson doesn't say anything about conservative criticism. Zagalejo 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I've changed ref 71, I thought pg. 131 was fine, but if you disagree, although it could be that the page number is wrong as my copy could be a different edition. Anyway, if not, would this satisfy the point [1]? Gran2 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we should add that ref into the article. In my version of the book, anyway, page 131 only contains an in-universe analysis of Bart. It does mention that Bart rarely gets punished, but it doesn't say anything about real-world conservative criticism of the show.
We may indeed have different versions of the book (I have the 2004 DeCapo version), but I didn't find any problems with the other Turner page numbers (with one exception, which was easy to fix). Zagalejo 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine is a 2005 Edbury Press copy, the British print of the book. And if you see no problem with the BBC source, I'll add that ref into the article. Gran2 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've put them both in, as the each cover the different points of the sentences. Gran2 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. I'd like to comb through the article once more to see if there's anything else that could be tweaked. Zagalejo 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other comments:
  • The Simpsons is a highly successful long-running animated American sitcom. That's a long string of adjectives. Should there be a comma in there somewhere? Or could we possibly eliminate "highly successful long-running" from the sentence altogether, and just let the facts speak for themselves? We do discuss the show's awards and run-length later in the lead. Zagalejo 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, removed the phrase. Gran2 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groening sketched an outline version of a dysfunctional family, and named the characters after members of his own family, substituting Bart for his own name. It may not be clear what "outline version" means in this sentence. It's not that clear to me. Zagalejo 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Groening sketched out a dysfunctional family". Gran2 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm.. "Sketched out" is still vague. Did Groening draw the family, or did he merely describe them? Zagalejo 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He drew them. Gran2 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it to just "drew". Gran2 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there might be some other problems. I just viewed the "America's First Family" DVD extra, which is used as a source for that part of the lead as well as the first paragraph of "Origins." Groening never explicitly says in the documentary that he was worried about rescinding publication rights to "Life in Hell," nor does he say that he drew a picture for Jim Brooks during the initial pitch. Here's exactly what he says:
Well, the Simpsons really began in the fifteen minutes that I had to prepare for a meeting with Jim Brooks to present him with my ideas. I was originally going to do my "Life in Hell" characters in animated form, and then, at the last moment, I got I scared. I thought, what if this fails miserably? I'll have ruined my characters, I'll go crawling back to my weekly comic strip, so I decided to make up new characters on the spot. Hence, the Simpsons, named after my own family. I wasn't particularly feeling creative in that fifteen minutes, so I quickly named them after my own family. I do have a father named Homer, a mother named Margaret - Marge is close, I thought Marge was a slightly funnier name - and I have two younger sisters, Lisa and Maggie. I thought if I made the main kid Matt, that would be a little too obvious, so I changed him to Bart.
Groening does later explain that he gave quick sketches of the family to the animators, but he never says if he did so for Brooks. Now, it's possible that Groening has told many different stories about the origin of the Simpsons, but the Wikipedia article must accurately reflect what the cited sources say. Zagalejo 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So should I change it (if so what to), or find another source for that point? I mean Turner mentions that he drew them, and was worried about losing his rights to Life in Hell. Would be okay, or it to much of a secondary account? Gran2 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually scratch that. [2] Gran2 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that settles that he drew them. He still doesn't explicitly say in that video that he'd be giving up his rights to the "Life in Hell" characters, but don't worry, I've located another interview where he does. The following comes from an April 22, 1998 broadcast of the National Public Radio show Fresh Air. It's from an interview between Groening and TV critic David Bianculli.
Well, they called me up and they -- and they said they had -- were doing this new comedy-variety show and they wanted to have little animated cartoons as part of the show, and suggested that I animate my Life in Hell characters, which I thought was a great idea. I found out that I would give up ownership of whatever it is that I put up. And so I created The Simpsons in their stead, 'cause I --you know, Life in Hell, with my Rabbitz (ph) and Akbar and Jeff --that's a regular gig and I was doing just fine with that. And I didn't know if this animation thing was going to pan out at all. And I decided not to sacrifice my own characters. So, I made up these other characters who I didn't really care about -- The Simpsons.
I found the transcript of the interview through Factiva, which I accessed through my university's library system. I don't know if it's available for free online, so if you need more info about the source, just let me know. Zagalejo 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah its going slow for me as well. Anyway, if its Fresh Air they usually have it on their website somewhere. I've used a Fresh Air interview in the Troy McClure article, using the cite interview template. So even if we just link to the transcript it should be fine. Gran2 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I found it: [3]. You can incorporate it into the article as you please. Zagalejo 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay the movieweb source is pretty unusable as its just some Youtube like site, and I don't think that the interview was conducted by them and so it can't be used as a source. If it transpire that the did do the interview then it can be used. So until then I've chaned it from "drew" to "created". And I've added the Fresh Air source. Gran2 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work. -- Wikipedical 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. I hate to do this, because the article does seem to be well written and informative, but it contains very little on international versions of the series. Perhaps I missed something, but the only mention of international activty relates to the DVD sales and the movie's box-office take. How many languages is the show dubbed into? Where is it broadcast? I know it's dubbed into Japanese, French, Spanish, and perhaps German and Italian, because those are all options in the DVDs for special episodes (e.g., Homer's Enemy and Kamp Krusty), and I recall Groening making a comment about having to choose the Japanese voice actors (perhaps that was in the commentary for In Marge We Trust). Beyond that, have you examined any academic opinion on the franchise? I know some stuff is out there (see the FAC for "Homer's Enemy" or "Homer's Phobia", I forget which at the moment). Also, Is there any sense of how The Simpsons have affected global perceptions of America? I know that Homer has ranked near or at the top of A BBC survey of most popular Americans in Britain recently. This is a huge topic, and the contributors deserve congratulations for producing such a fine article, regardless of my nitpicks. Great job!--Monocrat 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added about the foreign dubbing as that seems the most important thing of what you suggested, I might look at adding some of the other things later on. Gran2 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The image Image:Simpsons cast.png cites a web forum as its source. This should be sorted out ASAP, and removed if no official source can be found. Image:Simpsons comic books.jpg cites its source as a fan-site, the same applies here. The Image:C-SimpFamily.png source is a fan-page too, I believe. I feel the resolutions of the following images should be cut down-Image:Simpsons final poster.png, Image:Simpsons couch gag.jpg and Image:Bart Night Gallery.jpg. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it matter that a source for an image is a fan site or a forum? Its not like it being used as a reference... its an image, they can come from anywhere. Is there some kind of policy that forbids images using fansites or forms as there sources? Gran2 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm probably being stupid here, but what part of that policy says that images can't have sources that are fan sites or forums? If the image was found there, what's the problem? Gran2 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we are saying that these images were released by the organisation (Fox or whoever) to promote their work. But we are citing a fan forum. I could take any old image, post it on a forum, upload it to Wikipedia and claim that an organisation has released it as a publicity still etc, couldn't I? We need a proper source, maybe from a press release from Fox or something that includes the image. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a few more things. Some sources, such as <ref>Turner, p. 30</ref> are very vague. Is this a book, is this a pamphlet, is this a press release? It should be in the correct citation template and some parts should be wikilinked if possible. Also, it would be nice to mention religion in the sentence "... and lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself." It is one of the main themes of the series and is often imitated, somewhat controvertionally. I also feel that [4] should be included. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its pretty obvious that its a promotional image, and the fact is that any "official" sources don't exist. Unless you want me to quote www.foxflash.com, which doesn;t let you add direct links, but its every Fox image ever made. Also there is nothing wrong with the Turner ref, its how you cite book sources, the full book is in the references section if you cared to look. Gran2 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel these references should be in the {{cite book}} format. It's easy enough to do. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, when a book is cited multiple times in one article, each using different pages, that is the preferred system. The full book is included in the references section. Gran2 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also claim its "pretty obvious" that the image is a promotional shot-unfortunately, that isn't good enough for FA status. I reccomend having a look on that flashfox site. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is... Anyway, I've used Fox flash as a source for the images in question. Gran2 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of cite templates is not required, and the citation method is fine. Asking for use of cite templates isn't a valid oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment I'm not really satified with this section, but I'm not sure how to fix all the problems:
Credited with sixty episodes, John Swartzwelder is the most prolific writer on The Simpsons staff.[24] Conan O'Brien also wrote four scripts before becoming the host of Late Night with Conan O'Brien. English comedian Ricky Gervais is the only guest star to have guest written an episode,[25] although there have been other guest writers, such as Spike Feresten, a Seinfeld writer famous for "The Soup Nazi" episode.
Here are my concerns:
  • The sentence about Conan O'Brien reads awkwardly within the flow of the paragraph. It's just so abrupt.
  • I think we should clarify that Ricky Gervais actually played a character in the episode he wrote. Otherwise, it's not immediately clear how he differs from the "other guest writers."
  • Was Feresten really a "guest writer," (as in someone specially invited by the show to write an episode,) or was he just a short-time staff member? This isn't clear to me.
  • Perhaps more important than the last two issues, is it really essential to mention Gervais or Feresten at all? In the grand scheme of things, they contributed very little to the success of the show. Zagalejo 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with you, but Gervais writing an episode received quite a lot of media attention. I think the section needs to be rewritten to have a few more introductory sentences sort of thing. I'll get to work on it, firstly by listening to commentary for Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming, to see what they say about Feresten. Gran2 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I've re-written the section, and removed all mention of Feresten and the commentary mentions that although he wrote the original script, it was re-written almost completely afterwards so he doesn't really warrant a mention. Gran2 09:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose I'm just looking at the Gervais thing through an American perspective. I do have one more comment about the above section. Namely, should we cite a source to prove that Conan O'Brien wrote four scripts? (I know that he did, but that might not be common knowledge to everyone.) Zagalejo 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had to change it to "several" as I couldn't find a reliable source to say he had written four, but it is now cited. Gran2 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the episode counts are somewhat screwy to begin with, as most shows are collaborative efforts anyway. I did reword part of the section to more clearly emphasize why Conan is important. Note to Raul654: I'm not quite finished combing through the article, so don't close the discussion just yet. Zagalejo 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Looking through "Voice actors," I have a couple of questions:
  • Do we need to source "Richmond, pp. 178–179" so many times within this section? For example, one footnote will cover the first two sentences of the second paragraph.
  • Do we have sources for these two sentences? I don't believe these come from the Complete Guide: 1)She sometimes refuses to perform Marge's voice in public to maintain Marge's mystique. 2)With the exception of Harry Shearer, every main cast member has won an Emmy for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance. (I'd recommend removing the first of these two altogether, as it's trivial and it disrupts the flow of the paragraph.) Zagalejo 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the third paragraph in that section is unsourced, as well. Zagalejo 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look into it, luckily I found a ref for the Shearer thing this morning, but I never got around to adding it in. Gran2 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, all (as far as I can tell) done. Gran2 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. We're getting there! Zagalejo 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More
  • This part from "animation" is unsourced, and somewhat confusing: Animators used digital ink and paint during Season 12's episode "Tennis the Menace". However, Gracie Films delayed using 'digital ink and paint' for two more seasons. The already completed "Tennis the Menace" was broadcast as made. Do we mean that Gracie Films dealyed the regular use of digital ink and paint until season 14? Also, I don't think we ever actually explain what Gracie Films is. Zagalejo 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed something else. I don't think this source ever mentions the 138th Episode Spectacular as being a digital-ink-and-paint show. Zagalejo 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll listen to the commentary for the episode, although if it doesn't mention, its not a great loss, I mean, I think Radioactive Man being done with digital ink is more well known. Gran2 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general question: Might the article make more sense to readers if "Characters," "Setting," "Themes," etc (ie, the in-universe stuff) were placed before Production? Zagalejo 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, I look into it, I personally like the article layout as it is. Gran2 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a thought. It would be really nice if someone unfamiliar with The Simpsons could chime in. That way, we would know for sure if the present layout works. Zagalejo 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would be the best thing, because I'm really not sure which one would work best. Gran2 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • From "Setting": Groening has said that Springfield has much in common with Portland, Oregon, the city where he grew up. Though this comment is sourced, and seems true, to an extent, it just seems to contradict everything else in that paragraph. Some better organization and better transitional words might help. Zagalejo 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, may need some improvement. Gran2 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also from that section: Commentators have suggested, and then ruled out, nearly every US state and region as the basis for Springfield. This appears to be sourced to Turner, but I'm not sure where in the book he says something like this. Zagalejo 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Turner mention anything about Springfield's location? If not, how's this [5] even if its changed to the "Springfield is everywhere and nowhere" quote. Gran2 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turner talks about the flexible nature of Springfield, but he doesn't mention any sort of systematic process of elimination to determine where it is (or isn't.) I just don't like the implications of the phrase I quoted above. It sounds like someone had a checklist of every US state and made some sort of comprehensive study to determine that Springfield wasn't in any of them. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, in want of a better sentence, I have removed it altogether. Gran2 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section looks like it could still use some work. The last three sentences just don't flow very well, IMO. Zagalejo 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Opening sequence": This last segment is often the only one of the three gags to survive the process of shortening the opening for some syndicated episodes and for episodes which needed extra time. Is the sax solo really a gag? Zagalejo 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, should all mention of the sax solo be removed or "three" be changed to "two". Gran2 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's usually more subtle than the other two segments. I wouldn't mind removing it altogether, but I'll have to ponder it some more. We could probably retain it if we reorganize some things in that section and rewrite parts of it from scratch. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Halloween episodes": Although the Treehouse series is meant to be seen on Halloween, in recent years, new installments have premiered after Halloween. This is due to Fox's current contract with Major League Baseball's World Series. This probably needs to be sourced. Zagalejo 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked eariler, best I found was this [6] which wasn't very helpful, any help would be good. Gran2 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try looking. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be good enough. I found this on Factiva: "The annual Simpsons Halloween special traditionally airs the week after the big day — since Fox's October schedule is taken up by baseball playoffs — but for real fans, it's worth the wait." (Andrew Ryan. "Pick of the Day: The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror XVII." The Globe and Mail. 4 November 2006. pg. 12.) Zagalejo 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented, thanks. Gran2 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Criticism of declining quality", there is the sentence, "Some critics started calling the show 'tired'". Is there a reason "tired" is in quotes and italicized? Is that some Manual of Style thing? Zagalejo 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea, so I've removed the italics. Gran2 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that someone on the article's talk page is disputing the claim that the show is dubbed in Swedish. Zagalejo 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "DVDs": In particular, seasons one through ten have been released on DVD in the US (Region 1), with more seasons expected to be released in the future, Europe (Region 2) and Australia/New Zealand/Latin America (Region 4). I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems like someone jumbled parts of it around. Zagalejo 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Video games": Two Simpsons pinball machines have been produced; one that was available briefly after the first season, and another that was is still available for purchase. So, is it still available for purchase? A source might be needed here.Zagalejo 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, those are all the easily fixable problems that I noticed. However, I still have some concerns about more general things, like paragraph flow and organization within sections (Setting, Themes, and Merchandise, in particular, could all use some polishing). The page is almost featured article material, but I'd recommend recruiting some fresh-eyes (preferably, people who aren't hardcore Simpsons fans) to copyedit parts of the article. Zagalejo 21:11, 12 August 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/The_Simpsons&oldid=1140354843"