Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Simpsons[edit]

This is the third nomination of The Simpsons. Since the last FAC I've been fixing the critique and sent the article through a peer review. The current semi-protection is not a result of an edit war, but instead teens and pre-teens finding it funny to vandalize the article. I will try and fix any complaints people might have. --Maitch 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding archives, Sandy (Talk) 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, Very informative, well referenced and clear. Gran2 19:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom. Blackjack48 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as a long-time Simpson's fan, I was glad to learn a few new things. Very comprehensive and informative article. —ExplorerCDT 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - there are extensive referencing problems, to the point that I wonder if it's vandalism or just a lack of concern for WP:V. So much of the article is cited to non-reliable sources that it certainly fails 1c.
    • The article extensively cites The Simpsons archive, which is an outgrowth of a Usenet newsgroup, not a reliable source.
      • I have heard this before and I still don't buy it. In my experience The Simpsons Archive is more reliable than anything else I can dig up. The producers on the show have admitted that they use the website for fact checking what they'd already done. Most of the refs from The Simpsons Archive consist of copies of real newspaper articles. If it were any other article a real newspaper source would be of value and not considered unreliable. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You can read more about The Simpsons Archive in its own article. --Maitch 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Not only does this source not appear to satisfy WP:V or WP:RS; from the example given below (The New Yorker), it also appears that they may be violating a lot of publishers' copyrights, which means we shouldn't link to them anywhere, and perhaps their article should be AfD'd because of copyright violations. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • But if that is the case I can always reference the news article directly and skip the copy on the web. Would that satisfy you? --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, for example, a case like The New Yorker doesn't need to point to a URL which may be violating copyright. But, the bigger problem is that most of your article is sourced to the Simpson Archive, and I'm not going to support that. I don't consider it a reliable source, and it definitely seems to violate copyright. You can fix all of the news sources, but the extensive sourcing to that archive is the bigger problem. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (This URL doesn't point to the indicated source.) Owen, David (2000-03-13). Taking Humor Seriously. The New Yorker. Retrieved on 2006-07-03.
      • The link is dead and I can't find the article anywhere else. Even the internet archive doesn't have it. I will try to find a replacement. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The Simpsons Archive had a copy of the article on their webpage. The dead link is now fixed --Maitch 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Raises the issue of copyright violations on the Simpson's archive - see WP:EL, "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. " Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (This reference has the wrong date, and is in a different ref style than the other news sources - please use a consistent style.) Scooby-Doo breaks cartoon record. BBC (2004-09-25). Retrieved on 2006-08-21.
      • Date now fixed. Vandalism. The reason why the ref doesn't follow the same style as the others is that the article doesn't have the name for the author. What do you propose I do? Write "unnamed BBC writer" or something like that.--Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The difference in style I mentioned is in how you show the publication date, not the author. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • All the references uses {{cite web}}. The differences comes when some parameters are lacking. --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • The parameters are lacking because you're using the wrong templates - news sources need cite news rather than cite web. (But, the cite templates are pretty stinky anyway - they use inconsistent parameters, and give inconsistent results, so I sympathize with the problem - that's why I don't use them.) Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (This link is dead.) ^ Longest Running Animated TV Series. Guinness World Records. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.
      • Guiness has deleted it from their webpage. I found the article in the way back machine, so it should work again. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem is not whether or not you find a link: you're not required to provide links. The problem is that the article came to FAC without attention to making sure it was ready - given the density of problems I found, *all* of the references need to be checked - these were only samples. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (This reference also has the wrong date.) Remington, Bob (1990-09-26). It's The Simpsons, Man. The Simpsons Archive / TV Times (The Calgary Herald). Retrieved on 2006-07-03.
      • Date now fixed. Vandalism --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You mentioned vandalism twice in the random sample of errors I found. The fact that the article is being vandalized is not an issue at FA (reverts of vandalism don't apply to stability criteria): the fact that editors aren't catching and reverting the vandalism, and making sure the article is accurate before coming to FA, may indicate a problem with the accuracy of the article, and its readiness for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm only human. I can't sit at home all day waiting for the ten vandals who comes ny on a regular basis. It is way better now when the page is semi-protected. I have read the article many times before nominating it and I don't think there should be more problems. And as you say vandalism is not an issue at FA. --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • No, you can't babysit the article every minute, but you do need to check it thoroughly before bringing it to FAC, and it appears that the article is going to need to be tended if it is to maintain accuracy. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
              • So you have found two instances of people changing a 09 to 10, which I've missed, good for you and good for the article, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. I could have read the article a thousand times and still have missed it. --Maitch 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
                • You're missing the point: on a random check, I found more than two errors - you mentioned two were vandalism. The question is if you've checked *all* of your sources, since a random sample proved mostly inaccurate? I'm sorry you think I'm being a jerk about it, but WP:V is important on featured articles. Sandy (Talk) 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of the templates are placed at the bottom of sections (see also, further details, etc.), some at the top.
      • Is that a problem? I was under the impression that "main" should be used at the top of the section and "further" and "see also" should be used at the bottom. Do you prefer everything at the top? --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware that others should be used at the bottom: if that is the case, I won't object, but I've not encountered that before. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I was wrong. I just read a guide to layout which says "see also" should be at the top of the section. I have now moved them to the top. --Maitch 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for confirming - I wasn't that certain either. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The prose is not compelling - here's a sample: "Talk about a possible feature-length Simpsons movie has been going on since the early days of the series. " Here's another: "Scooby-Doo has been renewed again under a new name, airing on Kids WB in 2006, giving it another chance to catch up to The Simpsons. It must be noted that Scooby-Doo has experienced several incarnations, while The Simpsons' record comes as a continuous production."
    • There is uncited text - example: "While critical and public reaction has been mixed, several of the Simpsons games did very well commercially." Another example: " It is the longest-running series to have never experienced either a major change in cast members or the addition/removal of major characters (Gunsmoke, by comparison, underwent several such changes during its run)."
      • Both are now removed from the article. --Maitch 12:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Those were only samples; removing two examples won't bring the article up to FA level. A thorough check of sourcing, and a review of the prose is in order. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You're supposed to come up with actionable objections. Not just saying that you don't think the article is in order. --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I've come up with a long list of actionable objections, including samples of the prose problems. If I listed all of the prose problems, it would amount to a reprint of the article here. The prose needs to be reviewed by a fresh set of eyes. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Improved over previous versions, lots of work done, but not ready for FA - please get the sourcing of the article in order. Sandy (Talk) 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I will try and fix these objections. It will take some time so I can't respond to everything right now. If you will be kind to reply to some of my questions I will appreciate it. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Some initial comments to add to Sandy's.
    • The Storylines section appears to be a bunch of paragraphs stuck together without structure or logical flow.
    • The Impact on Language section has a number of unsupported assertions which come across as inflated/exaggerated:
"Many of the characters, concepts and catchphrases from The Simpsons have become common knowledge in modern society. A number of neologisms originated on The Simpsons have become a part of the universal lexicon, the most famous of which is Homer's saying: "D'oh!," which is referred to in scripts, as well as four episode names, as "annoyed grunt". So ubiquitous is the catchphrase that it is now listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, but without the apostrophe... The show's creators take pride in having passed on schoolyard rhymes to a new generation of children who otherwise may not have heard them.
    • Other examples of unreferenced statements coming across as boosterish/inflated:
With the popularity of The Simpsons, especially among children, it was only natural for the video game industry to turn to the characters and world of Springfield, with the early games starring Bart Simpson. While critical and public reaction has been mixed, several of the Simpsons games did very well commercially. As a gamer and past games industry analyst, I personally have never heard or read of a Simpsons game being a notable hit, nor I have heard or read of the Simpsons license as being particularly attractive for game companies
also this:The title family as well as other characters apears on everything from t-shirts, action figures to posters.

**Also unreferenced: Music is prominently featured in The Simpsons, with virtually all members of the cast breaking into song at least once during the course of the series. (does this mean the human cast or the cartoon cast?)

      • The sentence is changed to "Music is featured in The Simpsons, with many characters breaking into song during the course of the series." I really don't think we have to find a source that says that sometimes characters break into song on The Simpsons. --Maitch 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but its not as common or significant a feature as in, say, Family Guy Bwithh 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

**This is unreferenced and may be self-contradictory: ::It is the longest-running series to have never experienced either a major change in cast members or the addition/removal of major characters... While The Simpsons has a record number of episodes for an American animated show, some foreign animated shows, especially Japanese anime series like Doraemon, Dragon Ball, and Pokémon, have more episodes than The Simpsons

      • I have removed the cast member record. It is both trivial and unsourced. --Maitch 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

** The line about religion in the middle of the characters section is rather jarring - its not such a major theme on the show to warrant inclusion here, I think.

      • It is now removed. --Maitch 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bwithh 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Excellent, well-written aritcle. -- Scorpion 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Very good article, while looking through it I stopped to read some and learnt a lot about it, deserves to be featured. But i do think that the opening section should get cut a bit. It's four or five paragraphs, but it is meant to be just one with a brief overview.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit: After looking at it again, i feel that all we need to keep there is the first paragraph. The second could be merged into origins, and one could be merged into awards, etc.etc.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As the guy who put the lead together, I should say that a lead should be a basic overview of the article and I based on the lead of Arrested Development, a Featured Article. A one paragraph lead isn't very good for an FA anyway. -- Scorpion 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Simpsons name / snpp reliability concerns I attempted to add information from the Matt Groening article about the origins of the "Simpsons" name. This was sourced to a Season 2 DVD commentary but I added a citation needed tag as the claim about "Son of a Simpleton" sounds dubious. This addition was immediately removed[1] by Scorpion who said it was unsourced speculation and that the name origins was not vital to the article. However, the claim about "brat"/"Bart" in the article has exactly the same kind of sourcing (purportedly comes from a DVD commentary). The claim about "Simpson" being a literal translation of "Son of a Simpleton" is repeated by[2] in their main Creation of The Simpsons FAQ. I'm having trouble finding an authoritative source to back up this claim. Is this a case (which I've seen before) of people hearing laid-back semi-jokey DVD commentary and taking it as the gospel truth? Is really a reliable source? Bwithh 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I just saw the documentary which only lasts five minutes and it features an interview with Matt Groening where you hear it from his own mouth. It is included on the season one DVD. Is this now considered unreliable information. Because then I give up. --Maitch 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. It's good, but needs a clean-up throughout. Here are examples at random.
    • "Since it's 17 December 1989 debut," Ouch.
    • "20th century" (numeral), but "eighteenth"? Usually spell out single-digit, write others as numerals.
    • "chosen as it is an anagram of "brat."[7]"—Remove "It is".
    • We have "half-hour series", but "three season run" (and there's a second one in the lead).
    • "true hit TV series"—What's "true"?
    • Suddenly UK spelling: "programme".
    • "viewed by over 20 million people, and one occasion by over 30 million people."—ON one occasion?
    • "spokespersons"—"spokepeople" a little less ungainly.
    • Do we really need to link "United States", and common words such as "strike" and "saxophone"—it's already densely linked with useful ones. I'd go through and minimise. Tony 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lack of references. The article needs a lot more inline citations/footnotes and probably also some global refs (of which it has none). There are over two dozen paragraphs with no citations, so without any article ref, these are effectively unsourced. For example, the middle two paragraphs of the Voice actors section contains dozens of unsourced facts. Similarly for both paragraphs in the Animation section. The IMDB and SNPP refs aren't acceptable per Sandy. Ref 1 is a DVD doesn't need an IMDB link anyway. And, yes, the English isn't FA quality: "One of the most unique aspects of the opening is that…" ugh! Colin°Talk 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It is a good article, but I believe the show is too controversial to be an FA on Wikipedia. Mbralchenko 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the above obection should not be counted unless the poster adds a more relevant reason. Many of the FAs on the main page have been more controversial than The Simpsons, and that should not factor into the deciding of the article.
Yes, Controversy isn't taken into account for FA status. So its irrelevant that Simpsons is actually pretty tame, even by Fox standards (i.e. Family Guy) - never mind the animated stuff on cable (Drawn Together, Moral Orel etc) Bwithh 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit, Weak Support- Well written, but could use some more citations (for example, in the "production" section). Also, controversialness isn't an FA criteria. bibliomaniac15 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - well-written, well-referenced, important subject matter. Nice job. (Ibaranoff24 09:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Support, good article, inline citations all intact. Informative as well. Terence Ong 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support this article is the best source of information that one can get from a single source and we can either try to haggle out irrelevant flaws or accept it for the good article it is.
Actually, it seems like a bit of a waste to give away the article's only shot at FA when it's not super-perfect, but I don't see it getting any better. Atlantis Hawk 09:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good to see all the previous article problems were fixed (I had to put a Template:Unreferenced there so the sources could "appear") igordebraga 13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Great show, well-written article, you got my vote. -Mr. Crabby 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, this article is very close to gaining featured status. It's well written and, except for the referencing problems noted above, satisfyingly cited. I performed small copyedits by section up to "Plots" to the best of my ability; I hope I didn't cause any problems. Still, some sections have paragraphs that need citation, such as Production and Setting. I'm not going to object as others have noted these problems--Dark Kubrick 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot: I'd like to see more critical reaction as well. Right now, there's only criticism dealing with the show's declining quality. What did critics think when the show first premiered, and as it progressed?--Dark Kubrick 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the copyedit. There is some mention of the initial response in the "Origins" section. I think that covers it pretty well. I would like to note that Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a recently promoted FA) offers no critical reactions at all. It is very hard to find reliable sources for critical reactions from 1990. Basically, I would have to go through all of the newspapers in hope of finding a review. I do have some sources, but who is going to say that this one review would be typical of the general opinion in the year it was released. --Maitch 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Good job. Comprehensive and sourced article. I was not able to read the proofread the whole article from top to bottom, but if there are a few typos here and there, they can be fixed over time. Baristarim 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I finally managed to replace all of the sources deemed unreliable such as fansites, The Simpsons Archieve and IMDb with other sources. I wonder why The Simpsons is not allowed to use IMDb, when Buffy the Vampire Slayer is. I have also added quite a few more references. I would very much like people to specifically cite which sentences they think needs referencing. --Maitch 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)