Talk:History of The Simpsons/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count ) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)



Editor's note: First of all - thanks for the review. It is much appreciated. Before I start responding to your critique, I would like to explain the editorial decisions behind the article. There is a lot of material available on The Simpsons. The Simpsons WikiProject has written 298 GA's and 22 FA's by now with more to come. I could probably write an 300KB article if I wanted to do that. I decided that I wanted it to be an overview article that should be kept under 100KB (first draft was 140KB), because I don't really think anyone would want to read 300KB about a cartoon. So I tried to make the article as tight as possible and only included the most important stuff. Maybe some sections are too short because of this, but the idea is that the season articles should provide even greater detail. I will try and work on your concerns. --Maitch (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)



I'll be using the criteria below.AstroCog (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

* I'm putting this GA on hold while some of the issues below can be taken care of. I think it's a nice article, and not far from GA status. Article is passed, because of the recent improvements. AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I think this article needs to have a background section at the beginning to explain the show, its characters, and basic setting & style for readers unfamiliar with it. I know it seems unlikely that there exists anybody who isn't familiar with the show, but the article should read well for such people. The lead should reflect this as well. Linking to the Simpsons article is fine, but it should start something like "The Simpsons, a long-running American animated sitcom airing on the Fox Network..." As I read the article, I get an "in-Universe" feeling to the writing. Not in the Universe of the fictional show, but in the Universe of its fans. Story arcs, episodes, and people are brought up without any background or context. For example, the "Treehouse of Horror" section or the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" sections talk about these arcss/specials as if the reader is already familiar with them. It's not enough to just link to their pages, because article should stand alone. You don't have to add any great detail or plot summary, just some background and context. Does that make sense?
 * It does makes sense. I have been working on Simpsons articles for a long time and pretty much knows everything, so maybe I don't provide enough context for the casual reader. I will try and work on this. --Maitch (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * * Another good example of what I'm talking about: the "chalkboard gag" is mentioned a few times in the article without ever describing what it is. Example: "The Simpsons' producers rushed out an apologetic chalkboard gag for "Homer the Heretic", which aired a week after "A Streetcar Named Marge". It read, "I will not defame New Orleans." The gag should be briefly described earlier in the article.AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * * Another good example of what I'm talking about: the "chalkboard gag" is mentioned a few times in the article without ever describing what it is. Example: "The Simpsons' producers rushed out an apologetic chalkboard gag for "Homer the Heretic", which aired a week after "A Streetcar Named Marge". It read, "I will not defame New Orleans." The gag should be briefly described earlier in the article.AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think this article could use a copy edit. Some of the prose seems too informal, even if it's well referenced.
 * I want to encourage the editors of this article to look at the article The History of Sesame Street as model to follow. It's a FA, and I won't hold you to all of its standards for GA, but for basic structure and elegance of prose, it's an excellent place to look for guidance.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article, I think, recounts a lot of detail, but doesn't give the reader a sense of the broader impact of some of the controversies or creative decisions, apart from the immediate pop culture musings of the time. I would like to see something that wraps up the article with the show's cultural impact.
 * Almost all of the controversies (even those intentional left out of this article) did not have any broader impact than being in the news for a week or two. As noted in the article, the show holds an unusual contract, which pretty much allows them to do anything. So most of the time the producers just apologies for the time being and then end up doing the exact same thing later on. I could however, provide a section about the overall cultural impact of The Simpsons like The Simpsons. Is that want you want?
 * * Yes, that's the kind of section that would be good. Also, I would take a careful look at the controversies, and decide which are really worth keeping. You said some were intentionally left out, so I guess some thought has been put into this. But if, as you said, many of the controversies were momentary blips in the news, I'm not sure they're notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps a section called Controversies could go something like: "Because of its unique approach and style, over the years The Simpsons has registered numerous minor controversies...For example, in 1991..." and then you could give some examples. I guess I don't see a need for separate sections for things like the "Feud with G.H.W. Bush". That is certainly notable enough for inclusion in the main part of the article, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "feud", and probably doesn't need a whole subsection. The same with the "New Orleans Controversy". Interesting, but not notable enough to have its own sub-section. So, in the Jean and Riess Years section, for example, my recommendation is to just use paragraphs and not sub-sections. A couple of other sections could be improved along these lines. AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the controversies (even those intentional left out of this article) did not have any broader impact than being in the news for a week or two. As noted in the article, the show holds an unusual contract, which pretty much allows them to do anything. So most of the time the producers just apologies for the time being and then end up doing the exact same thing later on. I could however, provide a section about the overall cultural impact of The Simpsons like The Simpsons. Is that want you want?
 * * Yes, that's the kind of section that would be good. Also, I would take a careful look at the controversies, and decide which are really worth keeping. You said some were intentionally left out, so I guess some thought has been put into this. But if, as you said, many of the controversies were momentary blips in the news, I'm not sure they're notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps a section called Controversies could go something like: "Because of its unique approach and style, over the years The Simpsons has registered numerous minor controversies...For example, in 1991..." and then you could give some examples. I guess I don't see a need for separate sections for things like the "Feud with G.H.W. Bush". That is certainly notable enough for inclusion in the main part of the article, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "feud", and probably doesn't need a whole subsection. The same with the "New Orleans Controversy". Interesting, but not notable enough to have its own sub-section. So, in the Jean and Riess Years section, for example, my recommendation is to just use paragraphs and not sub-sections. A couple of other sections could be improved along these lines. AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It's going to take me a while to read through this article carefully to see that the controversial statements are supported by neutral references. There's a lot about controversies in this article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images, yes. However, it could use a fair-use image or two from the show itself, to illustrate relevant episodes or characters discussed in the article (e.g., ''Who Shot Mr. Burns?").
 * I have added two fair use images that both serves as identification for the article and shows the character development from the Tracey Ullman days to today. I don't think I am allowed much more, since the fair use policy is pretty strict these days. I noticed that History of Sesame Street doesn't have a single fair use image. --Maitch (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * * Additional images are good! Yeah, History of Sesame Street doesn't have show images, and I dinged the article for that during its FAN. The main editor of that article has been desperately trying to get images that the Sesame Street people will allow. Apparently, they are prone to issuing lawsuits.AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * * I like the new images. I would just caution against going overboard now with pictures. For example, I'm not sure a pic of Rio De Janeiro is necessary.AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * * Additional images are good! Yeah, History of Sesame Street doesn't have show images, and I dinged the article for that during its FAN. The main editor of that article has been desperately trying to get images that the Sesame Street people will allow. Apparently, they are prone to issuing lawsuits.AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * * I like the new images. I would just caution against going overboard now with pictures. For example, I'm not sure a pic of Rio De Janeiro is necessary.AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall: I'm passing this article for GA status. The work since the GA review started has been quite good and the improvements have been adequate for the GA criteria.AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pass/Fail: