Wikipedia:Peer review/Homer's Phobia/archive1

Homer's Phobia

The goal is to turn this into a FA, in the same style as Pilot (House) and the current FAC Cape Feare. Any suggestions for improvments, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are needed. Is the "Gay steel mill" image decorative fair use? Or is it fine? And any suggestions as to how to increase the lead's sixe? As said any input is greatly welcomed. Gran2 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite good, but it could use some work. I think words like offbeat in the "Synopsis" section are a liitle bit POV, and we could improve some parts of the "Synopsis" section in terms of formality in phrasing. As for the citations and factual accuracy, I think it has reached as far it can go, so it wouldn't take long to promote it to featured status.--Orthologist 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up. As for "offbeat" I personally think that it is okay, but if it was replaced is there an eqivilant word that couldn't be considered the slightest POV? Gran2 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In this case, it should be best to follow the standard presentation of fictional persons; we should write that he is portrayed as eccentric. This is not POV, as Homer wonders "how he can be a grown man and still like toys".--Orthologist 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word, used to describe John, appears to have been removed/changed anyway. Gran² 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really read it, but my first glance suggests it's good. I'm unsure what the MOS says about DVD commentaries, but it seems a stretch to credit each speaker separately in the References. (Does that make sense?) It might be better to have footnotes refer to the minute and (approximate) second in the commentary, which would be a bit more informative. Also, people at FAC seem to like a citation even for plot sections. Lastly but most importantly, the Reception seems a little anemic, although I'm unsure specifically how to expand it. Was there any TV Guide coverage? How about articles in the Advocate or other major publications? Surely someone notable railed against the episode, and that should also be mentioned.--Monocrat 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything right now, but I will look into this later. So from what you are saying it needs a paragraph on "pre-show build up"? Also as for people running against it, I think it was only the censors who tried to pull the plug, which is mentioned extensively in the Prodcution section.Gran² 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily "pre-show build up," but if you have such material (was there a media campaign or lots of news coverage?), add it to Reception or Production or wherever it fits best. As for railing against the episode, I mean more that preachers or conservative pundits who condemned the episode should also be covered.--Monocrat 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I spent a while searching and all I found was that a guy used it as evidence in his lawsuit against a Russian TV network, stating that he wanted The Simpsons to be banned from airing as it promoted homosexuality. I've put it in the article (obviously in more detail) as it seemed pretty interesting. If anyone else can find any other info out, that would be good. Gran² 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the synopsis, removed the second image, add a cultural references section, and expanded the lead. Any other suggestions are most welcomed. Gran² 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]