Talk:Holidays of Future Passed/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I will start this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Review
 * Just a few questions about the wording:
 * "finishing before new episodes of Family Guy" - does this mean that it had a higher rating than the new episodes of Family Guy, or visa versa?
 * It means it had more total viewers (all age-groups) than the other shows. I made an adjustment to the sentence, is it clearer now? Theleftorium (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Maggie is a famous band singer" - famous singer with a band? Or a singer with a famous band?
 * Fixed. Theleftorium (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "One of the other band members, who are in the room with her, presses a button on the robot's screen, which shows its facial expressions, and a soccer game comes on instead"
 * This is just very unclear. "One of the other band members" - other than what? - A member of the band? A member in her band? A band member?
 * The robot part is just unclear. Do robots generally have a screen? Maybe. I don't know.
 * Should be clearer now. Theleftorium (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A sports commentator, voiced by Groening, gives a long "goal" shout that is heard over the game.
 * What is the significance of this? What is the impact of the robot's screen turning into a soccer game and Groening shouting "goal!"? I'm missing something here.
 * I see where you're coming from, but there's just so little production information available out there about this episode that I think it's nice to mention this little tidbit about Groening (I don't think he's ever done anything like this before). The reason that the robot stuff is included is to better explain his cameo. Just writing "The episode features a minor cameo from Matt Groening as a sports commentator shouting 'goal!'" would perhaps not be very good. Theleftorium (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it that the things in the infobox don't have to be cited, like the "Couch gag" and the "Chalkboard gag"?
 * Correct. The episode itself is the reference (same for the plot section). Theleftorium (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine. Interesting episode with lots of dimensions! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So does it pass?  Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 14:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator has not responded to the comments above yet, so I haven't completed my review. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :) Theleftorium (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I would pass the article, but text continues to be added at a fast pace, so I will wait a bit.

*Also, the lede doesn't quite make sense: "Commentators have had mixed opinions on what the segment is mocking, whether it is the increasing Islamic influence in the US, specifically in Dearborn, or rather those who are thinking that Dearborn is under sharia law in December 2011, the time that the episode aired." - Aren't those the same view? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment
 * I have edited out a couple of quotes from the article to match the sources more closely, per WP:UNDUE. There were about six quotes by two columnists from the Houston Chronicle.
 * Thanks alot for that.  Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that there were too many quotes from one newspaper? I added another local Dearborn paper. It would be better if the quotes representing local reaction could be more representative of the citizens and less political pontificating.
 * 2 is enough, never (sometimes) more. I agree.   Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * "still under sharia law" in the future. - wording needs clarification as it is contradictory and not encyclopedic - Is this the case: the plot of Simpson episode is that Dearborn is under sharia law now and is still under sharia law in a segment taking place 30 years from now?
 * Yes, that is correct. Can you please help me out with the wording because I don't see the problem. Theleftorium (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "being beaten only by" - not encyclopedic - exceeded only by? only surpassed by?
 * Done! Theleftorium (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "such as Bart and Lisa not being satisfied with their lives" - such as the dissatisfaction Bart and Lise feel ...?
 * Done! Theleftorium (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Complies with manual of style guidelines for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources according to the guide for layout:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * "still under sharia law" - all quotes need to be cited to a source
 * Done! Theleftorium (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is a web producer for HoustonBelief.com, Kate Shellnutt writing in blog.chron.com/ a reliable source for statements that Dearborn will never be controlled by sharia law because the American legal system will prevent it, and that "anti-shariah laws have been proposed in at least seven states in the past year or so, including in Texas."
 * Yes, it is definitely a reliable source for that statement, since it is a statement by her. We are not claiming this as a fact. And the blog definitely passes the criteria of WP:SPS. Theleftorium (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * The segment in question, referred to as a "joke", shows the University of Michigan–Dearborn as the site where Milhouse is shown wearing a burqua, but the "joke" is not mentioned in the "Plot" section. Nor is it mentioned in the "Production" section. Therefore, the reader is unable to put it in context. It is mentioned only in the "Media attention" section in relation to political reactions to it.
 * Although there is news coverage of students' reactions to the mention of their university in The Simpsons episode, these are not covered in the article.
 * B. Focused: (See summary style):
 * "Media attention" - contains several quotes from an opinion blog by Debbie Schlussel used to refute a local news reporter; this is off topic as this article is about an episode of The Simpsons and not about the opinions of a conservative political columnist on whether a local reporter Bill Gallagher is a "leftist dhimmi reporter".
 * The "Media attention" section contains reaction not specifically related to the segment's "joke" regarding Dearborn and sharia law, but rather political opinion. This is an article on entertainment, not politics.
 * Statements from "Kate Shellnutt of blog.chron.com/ noted that Dearborn will never be controlled by sharia law "as long as the American legal system continues to operate under the Constitution".
 * Additional statements from Shellnutt: "Still, conservative politicians concerned about Islam in America bring up the threat of shariah, and anti-shariah laws have been proposed in at least seven states in the past year or so, including in Texas"?
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * In "Media attention", quotes from one political blog opinion piece by Debbie Schlussel are given disproportionate weight per WP:UNDUE.
 * Quotes from "Conservative political commentator Debbie Schlussel who disagreed with Gallagher, calling him a "leftist dhimmi reporter".
 * Additional quotes from Schlussel: "In the text of his report, he reports as fact that sharia does not in any way govern Dearbornistan. I can show many instances that prove him wrong."
 * Additional quotes from Schlussel stating [Gallagher's] report was incorrect in claiming that the episode "mocks and ridicules those of us who have pointed out the growing threat of Islam and sharia in America, specifically in Detroit."
 * Additional statement from Schlussel that she believes the segment was actually mocking the increasing Islamic influence.
 * This article should not be about political pontificating.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Reevaluation after fixes:


 * 1. Well written?:
 * 2. Factually accurate?:
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:
 * 4. Neutral point of view?:
 * 5. Article stability?:
 * 6. Images?:

Good work! Congratulations, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thank you spending so much time on the article, helping me, and doing a great review! I really appreciate it! :) Theleftorium (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Title Reference
Is it worth while to put a mention on the title being a play on the Moody Blues album title "Days Of Future Passed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.45.158 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)