Jump to content

Talk:Proposition Infinity/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: CTJF83 chat 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately they are going to have to be better. Since alt text is meant for blind people to understand the photos, they aren't going to know what Amy and Bender look like, or what Crystal Chesney-Thompson looks like. CTJF83 chat 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But alt-text only needs to describe the image so that no information is lost. Even if someone is blind, they would never have to know what Amy looks like or Bender looks like (not that they ever would), or Crystal Chesney-Thompson looks like to understand the article, since the image is there to depict the character engaging in a robot/human relationship and they already know that Bender is a robot and Amy is a human. The current alt text for the main image does that, the Crystal Chesney-Thompson image doesn't depict any more information than the description that it's an image of her (no one needs to know what she looks like), and the NOM/NOI image describes the image enough to highlight the similarity.Luminum (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the addition to the infobox pic is good, being that the plot of the episodeis about human/robot relationships, so looks good. CTJF83 chat 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Takei of Star Trek fame" what does the fame mean?
  • "Openly gay actor George Takei of Star Trek fame" means that George Takei is an actor who is famous for being in Star Trek. It was added to give context to Georgeo Takei. He's a frequent guest star because he is a Star Trek legend, but added significance to this episode in particular is that he's gay and was part of the Prop 8 media when he got a same-sex marriage with his partner. Does it need more clarification than that? If so, it can be rewritten.Luminum (talk)
  • "the Professor hates robosexuals"...I've only seen the episode one time, should it say he hates robosexual relations? I thought robosexual was only the human/robot relationship, not a class of robots.
  • In the first episode of the series, in reference to those who engage in robot/human relationships, they are called "robosexuals". As cited in the Themes and Continuity section, this is the first appearance of the concept and term, Bender stating, "Okay, but I don't want people to think we're robosexuals..." Since this is the terminology used in the show, I think it applies; Those who engage in robosexual relationships are called "robosexuals". The terminology is also used in this review: [1]Luminum (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the episode depicts an anti-Proposition Infinity advertisement ("No on Infinity"), which is a direct parody of NOM's 2009 *"Gathering Storm" campaign" For this I checked both sources, using a few key words (too lazy to read the whole thing), and I couldn't find where it said it is a direct parody of the "gathering storm", can you help me find it?
  • In ref 6 "The ad opposing Proposition Infinity was an absolutely brutal (and completely deserved) evisceration of an infamous commercial opposing same-sex marriage." The words "infamous commercial" are linked to the youtube video of the NOM ad. That ok? Stardust8212 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ad opposing Proposition Infinity was an absolutely brutal (and completely deserved) evisceration of an infamous commercial opposing same-sex marriage."[2] This is the most blatant statement in a review, but other reviews also point out the storm clouds, lightning, people' statements, and state that they are a satire or parody.Luminum (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly I can tell it is a reference to that, but since this is going for GA, and due to WP:OR concerns, I'm gonna have to ask for a reference stating the parody of the storm commercial in Futurama. Strike that, source 6 says it. CTJF83 chat 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, "Though the episode satirizes arguments for and against same-sex marriage, it leans favorably toward the idea of allowing same-sex marriage", I don't see it mentioned anywhere else in the article, and it is unsourced....although I do agree with the point, for WP:OR reasons it needs a source, or to be removed.
  • There shouldn't be any references in the lead, and all statements in the lead should be backed up by content in the body. I've adapted the following statement into the "Themes and continuity" section: "Many of the jokes in the episode were inspired by the actual vote regarding Proposition 8 and similar legislative debates over same-sex marriage throughout the United States,[3] with several critics noting that the episode was favorably pro-same-sex marriage.[4][5][6][7]"
  • Here are lines from several of the reviews that indicate the leanings of the episode (all of which source the above statement):
  • "Last night's robotic take on the needless hysteria and blatant hypocricy [sic] of gay marriage was not only steeped in satiric goodness, but it was downright hilarious." [3]
  • "Another show of hands: how many of you expected me to open with some speechifying about gay marriage? I considered it, but I'm not sure I have a whole lot to say on the topic that "Proposition Infinity" didn't already cover, albeit under the traditional science fiction guise of metaphor and silliness. (Basic truth: if you are against gay marriage, you are wrong. There's no way I could've [sic] gotten two paragraphs out of that, unless I busted out my Rhyming Becktionary.)" (Note: Even the reviewer clearly states his own opinion, he equates it to the episode's stance.) [4]
  • "Even so, there really isn't mistaking the show's point of view, and there's definitely no mistaking what the episode was really about. The ad opposing Proposition Infinity was an absolutely brutal (and completely deserved) evisceration of an infamous commercial opposing same-sex marriage. One line in particular had the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and was all the more hilarious for it: "If robosexual marriage becomes legal, imagine the horrible things that will happen to our children. Then imagine we said those things, because we couldn't think of any. As a mother, those things worry me."...The episode also revealed the two biggest opponents of robosexuality - the Professor and Preacherbot - as closeted robosexuals themselves. The robot preacher fared particularly poorly here, but he was probably at his worst when bellowing, "The only lies worth believing are the ones in the Bible!" What the episode's satire lacked in subtlety - and yeah, it was pretty lacking in that category - it made up for tenfold in its unsparing viciousness." [5]
  • "That being said, I was pleasantly surprised that the show has been taking a more active stance on current issues. Though the show has always been satirical, I enjoyed the episode “Proposition Infinity” and its attack on California’s Proposition 8 by paralleling the real-life gay-marriage issue to robot-human relationships. " [6]Luminum (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not 100% convinced. The first quote to me only shows that the reviewer supports gay marriage, not the episode leaning that way.
  • The 2nd one is a little closer, but I still don't think it directly says the show leaned towards pro gay marriage.
  • 3 is so close to saying it is pro gay marriage, but the author only says "there really isn't mistaking the show's point of view" which really infers the reader to draw their own conclusion.
  • ....I guess 4 says it, so that one is good enough for me, guess I didn't need to analyze the other 3. CTJF83 chat 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I'll await your responses, CTJF83 chat 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not the nominator but for the third point I would say you can have robosexuals who are in robosexual relationships in the same way as you can have homosexuals and heterosexuals who are in homosexual or heterosexual relationships. The word can be used either way. There may be a better wording though, I'll think about that tomorrow when I'm more awake, if Luminum doesn't fix it before then. Stardust8212 03:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But from what I remember in the episode, they said gay marriage and gay robot marriage was legal, but not robosexual marriage, which makes me think it just refers to robot/human relationships. CTJF83 chat 06:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation (gay humans and gay robots would not be robosexuals but a human who loved a robot could be referred to as a robosexual) but I still think we can find a better wording so it's not really important. Stardust8212 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review! Let me know if there's anything else!Luminum (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any time, ok, just a few slight concerns still, especially with the need to expand the alt text. CTJF83 chat 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to the alt-text concern above. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passing....feel free to talk page me when you get more Futurama episodes to GAC! CTJF83 chat 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposition_Infinity/GA1&oldid=1136239120"