Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive1

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 [1].

Deep Space Homer

[edit]
Nominator(s): AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is my First FA Nomination. I have reviewed many Good articles and have nominated others in the process. I have copy-edited this article and talked to others about the structure. I want to continue the success of Simpsons articles. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Darkwarriorblake

[edit]

As I don't really know how to do a Featured Article on a television episode, I have referred to an existing one - "A Streetcar Named Marge".

  • The first point I'd raise is that the lead does not mention any of the reception or legacy received by the episode
  • I would rephrase " The episode became the source of the Overlord meme". I kinda guessed what it referred to as a fan of the Simpsons, but to the uneducated reader I imagine this reads as quite random? Maybe other editors can input here. I would suggest something like "A scene from the episode, in which anchorman Kent Brockman mistakes ants for alien invaders, has since gone on to become a common meme for exaggerating submission to other entities". This might be too wordy, but I think explaining what the "overlord meme" means will go along way to helping the casual Simpsons fan or non-fan understand.
Do you think the Overlord part should be in the article? If so why in the lead? It seems better placed in "legacy AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Cultural references section, there is a line about "Astronaut Race Banyon is a parody of Jonny Quest character Race Bannon." this is unsourced.
  • As the DVD is sourced quite extensively in the article, you should add time-codes to show where the information is mentioned for people to be able to find it in the future. If you want to know how to do this, take a look at The Shawshank Redemption and Ctrl+f "sfn" for examples.
I did a "sfn" for the commentaries and have the location as "Simpsons World" due to that site being the location for all the commentaries. Finding the timestamps in near impossible and would take hours. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I would argue that there is an excuse to include a NFCC screenshot of something to do with Brockman/the ants to demonstrate what the meme is about as it's discussed a lot in the reception section.

Should I keep the meme in the article? AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meme is fine, it has plenty of coverage, I meant you could include an image of that scene to demonstrate what it is about. If you can't fit it into the article you could fit it into the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Image has been added. Thank you! AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 2: link goes to an error message
  • Ref 11: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 12; contains a redundant "pp."

Otherwise, the sources seem appropriate and are properly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: All Completed AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Aoba47

[edit]
Comments from Aoba47 (talk)
  • I would add a reference to the infobox image.
  • Please complete the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” box for the infobox image.
  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • In the infobox, move the link for David Mirkin to the first instance in which he appears (i.e. the “written by” parameter as opposed to the “showrunner” parameter.
  • I do not see the need for the references in the lead. That information and the references should be in the body of the article. Also, none of the information that is cited by the references are controversial to the point that a reference in the lead is necessary.
  • You can just say “Fox” rather than “Fox network” as the first is the more common way of referencing the network.
  • Please include the years in which The Right Stuff and 2001: A Space Odyssey were released.
  • For this part “with many calling it the best episode of the Simpsons”, specify who the “many” is (i.e. critics, fans, the show’s cast and crew?) and italcize “the Simpsons” as it is the name of the show.
  • The plot section is currently 639 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. This section will need to be reduced and revised drastically to meet the word limit. I have gotten away with between 400 and 500 in the past, but it should be reduced.
  • Please add ALT text for the David Mirkin image.
  • For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.
  • I think that there is a way to combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production. Some of the writers felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.) to make it read better.
  • Please add the year in which “Fire and Rain” was released.

*Do you have a source that mentions what lyrics of the song were altered for the show?

*I am not certain about the inclusion of a “Cultural references” section given that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television discourages the use of “Trivia sections”. I think that the section could be salvaged if you make it clearer that this information comes from episode commentary in the prose or turn it into a “Themes” section or something similar to that. Right now, it looks like a lot of original research to me.

  • I am not sure about certain instances in which Reference 1 is cited. For instance, I checked this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cutreplaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).), and I could not find anything in the source to support the “The Dawn of Man” parody.
  • Revise the Aldrin image caption to better illustrate why the image is in the “Reception” section. Right now, it just looks like a random picture thrown into the section. Include in the caption that Aldrin received praise for his guest performance.
  • Add ALT text for the image.
  • For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.
  • I am confused by this sentence (It was the highest-rated show on the Fox network that week, beating Living Single.). If it was the highest-rate show, then it would have beaten a lot of other shows, so why is Living Single singled out here.
  • NASA is linked too many times in the body of the article.
  • The final paragraph of the “Reception” section is interesting, but if the sources do not connect these events with this episode, then it will have to be removed as it is original research to connect these two ideas together on your own without an outside source.

*Here are a few sources that.I found while doing a quick Google search that could help with expanding this article: 12345678. I found these sources from a rather superficial search online, so I do not think that this is as comprehensive as it should be at this stage. First, I just want to say that I think that it is great that you brought a television episode to the FAC process. I have personally brought a few television episodes through here successfully, and it is great to see other people work on these types of articles. That being said I will have to oppose this, primarily due to three concerns: 1) the plot section will need to be reworked and revised pretty extensively to meet the word limit, 2) the "Cultural references" section needs to be completely overhauled, and 3) more sources should be added to this article. If I could find eight sources that are not already in this article during a quick and superficial Google search, then there is an issue in my opinion. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I just do not believe that this is ready at this stage. If you would like to continue working on this, I think peer review would be your best option. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I understand why you feel this way about the article. I will address all these issues, in hope that you will see again the potential this article has.

Countering, if you look at other Simpsons articles that are at FA status such as You Only Move Twice It contains 623 words(I fixed the extensive issue) and a cultural reference section.

@Aoba47: Could not find a source for the "Altered Lyrics" section

  • Thank you for the response and good luck with your work, especially with the plot section. This article still requires a lot of work though, but I wish you luck with it (specifically with the "Cultural reference" section and the comprehensiveness of the article). Also, remember that just because another article does something, it does not make it right. I still stand by my statements that the "Cultural reference" section needs some further work, but I could be wrong so hopefully more people contribute to this review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your reply. I will try my hardest do fix the problems that are located in the article; starting with your stated issues. Please do not hesitate to ask if there is anything else that needs attention. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: What if I make it just about 2001: A Space Odyssey, as this is a very credible area of cultural impact on the episode. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would seem fine by me. Make sure that all of the information is firmly supported in the source, and make it clear whether or not the writers/producers placed these references in the episode or if critics were the ones to make the connections. I am still not fond of the "Cultural references" title (even if it is kept, then the "References" part needs to be changed to "references"), and would refigure into something like a "Themes" section as suggested by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. I would also make sure to cover my concern with comprehensiveness. Also, if you are going to add more resources, make sure that they are full formatted correctly and fully used. For instance, Reference 19 does not have all of the information in the citation, and I would expand upon this part, as just saying it has some vague connection with the episode is not particularly helpful or informative. I hope you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for further sources on the episode, and there are a fair number of "book" sources out there (as shown through this Google search here) that are not used in this article. I stand by oppose on the grounds that this does not meet 1b. of the FAC criteria (i.e. comprehensive). I believe that a significant amount of work will be needed for this be passed as an FA, and I stand by my suggestion that this should go to a peer review instead for further feedback. I am not sure if FAC is an appropriate place to address these points as they are rather major and stem beyond issues with prose. I would actually recommend withdrawing this in favor of a peer review approach. Hopefully, other editors will add their opinions to this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I am trying my hardest to fix every issue present in your statements. I am completely awake of everything you are stating and understand why you are typing this info to me. I thank you for this. I would like to however, continue the FAC process to have more editors put their thoughts and comments about the article before I reach the point of withdrawing. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: :( Okay, I am supportive of whatever your opinion is. Thank you so much for the input. I will keep you updated. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

[edit]

Used the archived bot to all sources but there are some things that bother me:

  • Some sources seem a bit hard to trust like Know You Meme since they are edited by users rather than professional writers.
  • I would avoid referencing the plot section unless we are referencing a confusing fact like what happens to Harvey Dent in the second Nolan Batman movie.
  • Avoid small paragraphs. As I always think, imagine that Wikipedia is a formal letter.

Other than that, I am willing to give you my support if these issues are solved. If possible, could you check this FAC? Also, don't worry if the nomination fails. There is always next time and this was your first time at it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: All issues addressed, Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving my support. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bcschneider53

[edit]

Just taking a brief look through this, I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Like Aoba47, I also have concerns about comprehensiveness. A quick search via Google Books shows that the episode has several other sources that are not yet present in the article. Therefore, I'd like to see some additional referencing (and, if possible, material) added before I give this a formal review. Also, this is just a side note, but I'd remove the Grade Saver reference (#9) as it appears to be nothing more than a direct copy of this article/section, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Parodies and homages.

Please, don't worry if the nomination is not successful. I've had nominations fail in the past as well. FAC is a long working process that requires an intense amount of research and dedication. This is absolutely a GA but I'm not sure it's comprehensive enough to be an FA just yet. I wish you nothing but the best as you continue to work on this! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

[edit]

Closing comment: Given the standing oppose on this FAC, and the concerns of Bcschneider53, I will archive this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period, but I would recommend getting further eyes on the article if possible before renominating. Sarastro (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Deep_Space_Homer/archive1&oldid=858999503"