Talk:Politics in The Simpsons/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This article should be interesting to review, even for a non-Simpsons fan. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Is there any chance we could include the Arnold Schwarzenneger parody in Real-life politics section using this source? . I know it's not referenced in the show but in its 2007 movie tie-in, but it'd be quite a shame this article miss out on it considering the relevance... Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but Metro has been designated as an unreliable source on Wikipedia (WP:METRO). I added a mention to it from one of the books that's already used in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

::Thanks. I have additional minor issues with this section:

• you committed a typo inline with the Turner source supporting the recent edit, 2010 instead of 2004, which is why it returns an "error" when I click it
• if both "real life" and "real world" are to be used as adjectives, be sure they're hyphenated
• is there a reason why "cast-members" is hyphenated?
• the Bush quote should be rendered a blockquote since it's 301 characters
• In cite 23, use |last= |first= parameter for Jon Henley for consistency
• Please be sure each sentence in this section and elsewhere meticulously observes proper logical quotation; for instance, since "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is a sentence fragment followed by a clause, the comma should be placed outside. Might wanna link said phrase, too

Expect additional comments soon. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've fixed these issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Here are some of my next concerns:

Political systems

• "The setting of Springfield within the show" -> just link Springfield and remove "within the show"
• Link populist and everyman
• "next door" should be hyphenated
• "He uses his political power to make life difficult for the Simpsons," -> Who's "he"? Is it Slideshow Bob?

Political stance

• "The Simpsons has been praised in the past for its tendency to make jokes at the expense of ideas across the political spectrum" -> just substitute struck clause with "mock" or "satirize"

Issues

• "was pitched by Scully" -> Link Mike Scully
• "it's that a man like Homer should not own a gun" -> No contractions
• Link Milhouse and ADHD medication
• Convert % symbols into words (WP:PERCENT)
• "for either season seven or eight" -> use numerals in this for consistency
• "short term" in short term memory loss should be hyphenated
• "Bart is a troublemaker that continually defaces school property while Lisa is an ideal student that is unsatisfied with her schooling." -> separate clauses with a comma
• Reduce abundant use of "Lisa" and its genitive equivalent by instead referring to her by her pronoun in the first paragraph of Environmentalism
• "Portrayal of alcohol and smoking in The Simpsons" -> remove struck redundant phrase
• Cite 48 is not a reliable source
• "In an interview, Matt Groening expressed his friendship and support to gay individuals. According to him, "gay men are starved for positive portrayals of lasting love". -> I think these two sentences could be merged into one sentence
• "The first appearance of a character implied to be gay was in the season 2 episode "Simpson and Delilah" in which the character Carl (voiced by Harvey Fierstein) kisses Homer." -> separate clauses with a comma Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

These should all be fixed now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

::OK. Onto the next one:

Foreign relations

• "The controversy is over an exchange between Lenny and Carl. Carl says "I could really go for some kind of military dictator, like Juan Perón. When he 'disappeared' you, you stayed 'disappeared!'". -> Try merging these into one sentence using the relative pronoun "who"
• "The clip was viewed on YouTube over ten thousand times in Argentina and some politicians in the country called for the episode to be censored or banned." -> Use the Oxford comma on this, and convert ten thousand into numerals for consistency with 8,000
• "in the U.S. Bart use to watch violent cartoons," -> typo?
• "Some reacted negatively to Lenny's response to Carl's comment: "Plus, his wife was Madonna", a reference to the film Evita, where Madonna played Eva Perón." -> unsourced
• "Argentinians had protested the filmmakers' decision to cast Madonna in the role of their beloved first lady." -> Dubious claim. Firstly, did all Argentinians really protested or was it just her supporters? Because according to the source cited, Eva Peron was apparently a polarizing figure in her country, both idolized as a saint and vilified as a "whore". Therefore, her Argentine critics couldn't possibly have cared less whether Madonna played the role. As such, "beloved first lady" sounds borderline POV claim not otherwise cited. Secondly, what was the reason for the protest? Was it because her supporters felt Peron's down-to-earth image contrasted with that of Madonna? This should be stated briefly
• "In an unprecedented decision, Fox decided not to air the episode in Latin America. In an e-mail sent later to the media, the network said that this decision was based on "the possibility that the episode would contribute to reopen wounds very painful to Argentina". -> Merge these sentences with a semicolon
• "The board's exact words were "What really hurt was the idea of the monkeys, the image that Rio de Janeiro was a jungle ... It's a completely unreal image of the city". -> precede quotation with a colon
• "However it was international news for a while." -> follow subordinating conjunction with a comma
• Delink United States and link New York Post
• "Republican American" -> should be "American Republican"
• "Some argue the phrase's success reflects deep antipathy in the U.S. towards countries such as France who oppose the U.S. in international forums." -> As per source, it's "European countries" since the phrase was not only directed toward France but also in a few European countries. So, it should go "toward European countries, such as France, who oppose the U.S. in international forums". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  These should all be addressed now. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "foreign relations" section on this article, but I didn't feel comfortable deleting it while I was working on the article, so I had tried to clean it up a little bit and add some more examples. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Cites 60, 63, 71, 73 are broken; however, there should be archived versions of these available at the Wayback Machine
• Inline citations on non-English sources should use |language= parameter and state what language in which the article was written
• Link all publishers on online sources but make sure not to overlink; link authors to their Wikis, too, if available
• Cite 49 has no publisher
• cites 52 and 72 don't use "|last= |first= parameter on author Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. I linked to the names of websites and periodicals in sources. I put archive links for three of the articles, one was not available at the Wayback Machine. Last names, language, and publisher name have all been fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you find a better alternative source for cite 60? I feel like it's a blog and does not pass the GA criterion for reliable source. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the story only ran in blogs and gossip magazines, which basically means it's not notable enough to include on Wikipedia. I removed the sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. I thank you for addressing all of my concerns. I'm happy to announce that the article has passed the review—it's well written, broad, neutral, illustrated with licensed images, and verifiable. This is something I could see becoming a Featured Article in the future. If you do plan to go that route, my advice would be to use a consistent inline citation format to even better sources, as well as put in a request to the Guild of Copy Editors to achieve the "engaging prose" demanded by the FA criteria. I would also recommend nominating this newly-promoted GA to the main page via Did you know to increase its readership somehow; the article has only had 4,298 pageviews as of late, which is such a shame. Anyway, congrats for having passed the review. Regards, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)