Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife/archive1
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [1].
Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Theleftorium (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article a year ago without the intention of taking it to WP:FAC. However, I believe it is one of "my" better articles and therefore thought it would be worth a shot. :-) English is my second language so perhaps the prose isn't great, but the GA reviewer (User:J Milburn) thought it was well "well written". Thanks in advance for any suggestions and comments! Theleftorium (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Not a concern, but, could you write out the dates fully, rather 03, write March. Not a requirement.
- I'd prefer not. Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN8: "Click here to find out more!" is not needed, nor in the url
- Not sure why that was there, done! Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is ref. 10 a high-quality source?
- How is it not? Surely Dazed & Confused (magazine) is a reliable source? Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checking. Understood. TBrandley 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it not? Surely Dazed & Confused (magazine) is a reliable source? Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Ref. 10's date format different from the rest (January 2006)
- Ref. 17 is missing the publish date. It was "April 24, 2006" according to the source
- Why does Ref. 17 have a publisher, and the rest don't. Either remove the publisher, or add the publishers for the rest. Either works.
TBrandley 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- In the first image, a comma is missing after "in" and before "and".
- In Matt's image, is "enjoyed" really an encyclopedic word for Wikipedia. This has been questioned to me before.
- Yeah, I think it is. Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TBrandley 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reviews! Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I'll add some other comments now. Regards. TBrandley 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
- Link animated to animated cartoon
- Only Fox should be linked, not network
- I believe that "American" covers that it aired on Fox in the US. So, I don't think that "in the United States"
- I disagree, some Simpsons episodes have aired earlier in other countries and not all people know that Fox is an American company. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- people should be viewers, as it is a more encyclopedic word
- Viewers is used in the third paragraph of the lead, so I'd prefer some variation. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- television series → comedy series
- Which "Wife Swap" series; the British one?
- "like" isn't an encyclopedic word
- I've never heard that before, are you completely sure about it? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the episode" how about change to "this episode"
- What sentence are you talking about? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fox Broadcasting Company studios". No, its just "Fox studios". Thus, removed the previous "the"
- "he" means "Charles", right?
- What sentence are you talking about? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "popular" is a violation of WP:NPOV
- Removed! Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- television series → comedy series in "Production"
- "that was broadcast in the United States on February 20, 2011" is off-topic
- I don't see how that is off-topic at all. Readers would want to know how far between his two guest appearances were. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories should be sorted in alphabetical
TBrandley 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pretty solid. Great work on this article. TBrandley 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little copyediting; do check you're happy with it.
- "develop a crush" isn't all that encyclopedic.
- Agreed, I changed it to "develop an infatuation for her" - better? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "At this lunch, he was offered to appear in and write an episode of The Simpsons." Clumsy phrasing. As written, this means that Gervais was offered in exchange for an appearance.
- "At this lunch, he was offered to write an episode of The Simpsons and to guest star in it." Something like that? Theleftorium (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't offer a person to write- you offer a person a chance to write, or you offer them payment to write. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see what you mean now! Would "he was offered a chance to appear in and write an episode" solve the problem then? Theleftorium (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't offer a person to write- you offer a person a chance to write, or you offer them payment to write. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "At this lunch, he was offered to write an episode of The Simpsons and to guest star in it." Something like that? Theleftorium (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "but figured that" Again, a little colloquial
- Changed to "but came to the conclusion that" - better? Or maybe I should just use "realized"? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either's fine. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "but came to the conclusion that" - better? Or maybe I should just use "realized"? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "after a Friends episode from 2000 that drew 2.8 million viewers" Do we know what episode that was? A link probably wouldn't hurt
- It probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out, but since the sources don't mention the episode title I'm not really sure if we can. That might be considered OR? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the source doesn't mention it, don't worry about it. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out, but since the sources don't mention the episode title I'm not really sure if we can. That might be considered OR? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That mystery British newspaper is still annoying. I'll have another dig tomorrow. The article's a strong one- definitely not far from FA-ready. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well technically we don't really have to include the newspaper part, do we? It could just say "According to Don Kaplan, writing for the New York Post, Gervais said in late 2005 that..." No? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the great copyedits! Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought of something else- was this ever released on DVD/VHS? A line at the end of the first paragraph of "release" may not go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the fifteenth season will be released this Christmas, but maybe in a year or two. :) Theleftorium (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am happy that this is what an episode article should look like. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Theleftorium (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above changes. Good work. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by David Fuchs
- Why does the lead pick out the Sky ratings after the US ratings, and in a completely different paragraph?
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't really think about that before. I went ahead and removed the UK ratings from the lead, as I think there is enough information from the "Release" section anyway. The US ratings are also more important since the episode's original broadcast was in that country. Theleftorium (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments - spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ref number 23: Link is dead. --NewWikiBoy (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the link since I can't find an archive. Theleftorium (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- Article: Many Simpsons staff members were fans of English comedian Ricky Gervais and his British comedy series The Office that he created and starred in.[2]
- Source: Groening recently heaped praise on The Office, saying: "Everybody on The Simpsons is a fan of The Office - it's one of the best shows on TV in the last decade."
- Article: When asked in an interview if the Simpsons staff learned anything from the experience of having Gervais contribute to the show, Groening said they found out "that we could stay true to The Simpsons' sensibility, with high-velocity visual gags, but also honor what Ricky does with subtlety and nuance."[4]
- Source: MG: That we could stay true to The Simpsons' sensibility, with high-velocity visual gags, but also honour what Ricky does with subtlety and nuance.
- Article: In July 2007, Groening stated that he would like to see Gervais appear on the show again because the staff enjoyed his performance. He also said that Gervais could decide himself if he wanted to return as Charles or a new character, should he choose to lend his voice again.[13]
- Source: Speaking about a possible comeback, Groening said: "We loved having him on the show. Whatever he wants to do - we'd love to have his character return. Or he could do something completely new."
- Article: Gervais has been praised by critics for his performance in the episode. In a 2010 article, Mike Bruno of Entertainment Weekly named Gervais one of the eighteen best The Simpsons guest stars,[5]
- Source: 'The Simpsons:' 21 Great Guest Stars... Ricky Gervais ...Charles (from Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife, 2006) The source is dated Feb 20, 2012, the number of guests is given as 21 and the link is wrong it should be this one: [2]
- Article: The Times critic Dominic Maxwell thought the "languid timing that Gervais brings to Extras and The Office was wrong here. Simpsons cameos are normally lean, but Gervais's shtick ran rampant through the second half, turning the regulars into extras."[23]
- Source: Online source requires subscription
- Article: He was also the first Briton to write an episode for the show.[7]
- Source: Simpsons creator – and fan of The Office - Matt Groening asked Gervais to be the first ever British writer of an episode.
- Just the one issue (in bold) needs to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the EW article was updated this year to include more guest stars from the later seasons. I've fixed it now! Thanks for the spotchecks! Theleftorium (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - I am not convinced that the prose is FA. The writing is clunky in parts and does not flow well.
- This, for example, needs some work: "At this lunch, he was offered a chance to appear in and write an episode of The Simpsons. Groening first asked Gervais for just a guest appearance, but came to the conclusion that he might be interested in writing an episode too. Gervais told The Independent that when he got the offer, "well, I knew I had to say yes, but fear kicked in at exactly the same time."
- Here, "He became the first person to be credited with simultaneously writing and guest starring in an episode of The Simpsons" - "simultaneously" is not the right word.
- Here, "After the lunch with Groening and Jean in early 2004, Gervais began coming up with a storyline" - coming up with is too colloquial, it should be "to develop". There is another "came up" later.
- This, "Gervais said to a British newspaper" sounds surreal.
- Here, "The large amount of viewers" should be number of.
- I would like to see more work on the prose before closing. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.