Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Simpson/archive2

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 not promoted by Karanacs 17:13, 30 March 2010 [1].

Lisa Simpson

[edit]

Lisa Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I feel that the page has improved quite a bit since its last nomination, with copyediting provided by the great Scartol. It's modelled after the Homer and Bart Simpson FAs, though it is structured a bit differently. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick Comment - I'll post more later. Oppose
Resolved issues 陣内Jinnai
    • Is her name that contriversial that it needs to have a citation in the lead? Couldn't her full name be listed in the first instance in the main body and cited there instead?陣内Jinnai 08:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's for the "Marie" portion, which is only in one episode.
        • Is it something that needs a citation in the lead? Can you not find a way to incorporate that into the body and move the citation there? Or is it something that there is a contriversy over, ie fan or others disagree with her middle name (or if she has one)?陣内Jinnai 00:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's for users who haven't seen the episode, and assume it must just be vandalism (and believe me, they exist). Does the citation hurt anything?
            • Per WP:LEADCITE "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers.... ...the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
              basically, if you are stating that
              1. There is no place to put her full name in the body of the article where it can be cited OR
              2. it has been constantly challenged with good faith questioning about her middle name...
            • ...that is fine. However, even if that is the case per WP:CITE#Inline citations it should probably be placed at the end of the sentence. I don't think her middle name is that contentious.陣内Jinnai 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of excess wikilinks that link to the same article. Every time an episode is mentioned. For example, whether it's been linked to before it is linked to again. You should remove a lot of those duplicate links.
      • Why? It's not like everyone who looks at these will be completely familiar with the episodes, so the links help provide quick reference.
        • Which is why 1 wikilink is enough, unless there is a clear reason for it, which I haven't seen. That line of reasoning can be used for almost everything on Wikipedia.陣内Jinnai 00:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've never seen the point in opposing over something like wikilinks. They are there to help with navigation, so who does it hurt if some a repeated a few times? After all, does it hurt to make it navigation easy?
    • There is a lot of redundant information in Role in the Simpsons that is mostly used in her character bio and then described a bit differently under other sections such as development, personality and somewhat in cultural influence. Very little info in her role is unique.
      • Again, why is that a big deal? It's supposed to describe her role in the show, and we can't just exclude stuff because it's covered elsewhere.
        • Basically my biggest problem is the Role section has almost everything repeated in the development and personality sections, except from different prose and, in development, a different POV. This makes me question the relevance for the Role section.
          • It basically summarizes her character, or her role in the show. As you said, the later sections expand on certain points.
    • Her personality section has a lot of episode references when and uses it as though they are permanent changes, such as linking to the Y Chromozone (although admitadly this one does have an article on it as well(. The point is though, you are giving undue weight to specific episodes and their occurances in her personality section when it hasn't been reused or commented on that it is a permanent change to her character from a reliable source capable of such a statement. In addtion, that section reads more in-universe than the other sections, possibly due to the lack of such commentary.陣内Jinnai 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, so I shouldn't give examples of these traits because that might be considered undue weight? The personality section does have some critical commentary in there, and isn't completely in universe. -- Scorpion0422 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. Just like you don't list every a character's special moves from an action work like Superman because it gives undue weight to lesser moves elevating them to importance to the same level as important plot-point and character-development info.
          That Lisa became a vegetarian and a Buddhist is important because it has had lasting impact on her character and the creators have gone out there way to make certain they do not contradict that in the future. That is not done for all the items you list.陣内Jinnai 00:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except that we're not listing special moves, we're discussing character traits, which are completely different. Giving specific examples helps illustrate those points. It's just like in a biography when you're discussing a writer/actor's various professional traits and you give examples, to help readers understand better. For example, the bit about the chromosome, that's actually part of a larger point about Lisa being humiliated by her family (and, might I add, it is covered by a non-show ref). -- Scorpion0422 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Replace special moves with personality traits. For a series known to contradict itself (and you even go out of your way in the article to make that clear) unless there is information that makes it clear it is a permanent aspect of her character, it is not major. I could probably list half a dozen one-time incidents that haven't been contradicted yet that you haven't found, but that doesn't make them important to her personality. The aspects like vegetarianism and Buddhism are because the creators have made that a permanent part of her character.陣内Jinnai 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all, you don't need to lecture me on the lack of continuity. While researching, I found most of the sources used (Planet Simpson, Simpsons & Philosophy, Psychology of Simpsons) usually focus on three topics: her intelligence, her ideals & activism (which includes religion) and her relationship with her family. That is what the personality section does, but it builds on itself with specific points. Sure, Lisa the Simpson isn't a huge episode, but it is one that focuses on her relationship with her family, and thus fits in with the section. And please stop with the "if it's only in one episode it doesn't matter", we aren't talking about some flash in the pan trait like her eating disorder that popped up in season 16. -- Scorpion0422 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, your picking out 3 1-episode items which have not been shown to be reoccurring points of her character with elements that have not been shown that they cannot be undone by continual. IE, you are placing undue weight on those elements to elevate them to the same importance as those that have had some level of recognizance as core to her personality that future episodes cannot conflict with those elements of her character.陣内Jinnai 04:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article has become stronger, but I still think the number of non-permenant features described in the Personality section are a bit excessive. I understand the need to give a few examples, but I feel the number here could still be trimmed to 1 or 2 for anything that hasn't become an element of Lisa that cannot be contradicted in future episodes.陣内Jinnai 00:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands right now, there are seven examples in that section, and I think all are useful. For example, the statement "Lisa occasionally worries that her family's dull habits will rub off on her" could work by itself, but the first thing most will think is "okay, such as?" Personally, I don't think these specific examples are a bad thing because they give the reader something to relate to. Most casual fans will read "Although she is intellectually gifted, Lisa experiences typical childhood issues, sometimes requiring adult intervention" and think 'okay, what is an example of when that happened?'. There's the example, the reader takes a look and says 'hey, I saw that!' And when you keep that in mind, setting a bar for how many examples can be included is a bad idea. -- Scorpion0422 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—many of the references are to the episodes themselves, and these cite, among other things, personality traits, fictional character history, and lapses in continuity. That is original research. An analogy would be reading The Great Gatsby and describing Jay Gatsby's character based on your interpretation of the work, as opposed to citing secondary sources on the book.
Sadly this also seems to be an issue with the two other Simpsons character FAs you mentioned in your nomination intro.—indopug (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it original research? All of the analogies in the personality section are covered by third party sources. The rest is just describing what happens in the episode. For example, yes, the article does say that That 90's Show contradicts the established back story, but why is that original research? The previous sections give the history stated in several episodes. The next one says an episode contradicts that, without any commentary or original research. -- Scorpion0422 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. That would hold true if the article said things like "Lisa is a bit arrogant" and then cites an episode, that would be an interpretation. But the uses of episodes (not commentaries, but simple episodes) all seem to cite simple facts presented in said episodes like her birth year or the names of boys she's had relationships with (looking over this, ref 8 needs to be outside the comma). The only thing that vaguely goes to what you mention are the two Bleeding Gums Murphy notes, but she clearly is saddened by his death in the one episode. The pulling her out of the depression sentence is the only potentially questionable example I can see. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the personality section and added non-episode references for antyhing that might be analysis. However, I left the episode references in for anything that is just re-telling what happened without analysis (ie. That she becomes a member of Mensa). -- Scorpion0422 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

87.115.20.28 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think that the article is in good condition and should deserved to be a featured article. 87.115.20.28 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2010 (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/Lisa_Simpson/archive2&oldid=1075400849"