Talk:The Secret War of Lisa Simpson

Most loved
Not sure about this assertion at all, nor that that Series 8 marked the end of the Golden Era (for me The Simpsons jumped the shark in series 10, but that's just my POV).

However, The Unofficial Simpsons Guide has it that this one of the duller and more unoriginal episodes put out up to its date of release; something I'd concur with. It's tidily enough written and directed; just not particularly absorbing. Martyn Smith 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed, pending a source. This comment was made at least a month ago, and so far no sources have been forthcoming. If anything, we've got a source from the USG that says it was dull and unoriginal. Feel free to reinclude once someone has a reliable source for the "most loved" and "golden age" commentary... -- nae'blis 05:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Screw up
When bart is being slowly chased by the cops you can clearly see chief wiggum driving one of the cars, when he is supposed to be inside on the couch talking to the parents. I feel this should be on the page.


 * I agree, maybe someone could start a Trivia or Error section for that? There is also a mistake towards the end when the class has to complete the Eliminator. When Lisa climbs up the ladder and hugs against the pole, there is a short scene showing (from her view) the thorn bushes, which then moves up towards the other members of her class. At the beginning of this scene, the platform that she is standing on is not visible under her feet (making it look as if she's standing on nothing)
 * Redterror117 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Short
Why is this page so short? -- Scorpion 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it wants to be. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There, now expanded. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, although Gran or I would have gotten here eventually - we're working on all of the Season 8 episodes. Either way, you saved us some time. I'm curious, do you own the Season 8 DVDs? -- Scorpion 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't own any of them. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Ref #3 supposed to be?
Is it the ref that mentions a "Richmond"? I wouldn't know.--Rmky87 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
I really find the prose dull and stagnant. The lead isn't absorbing, with "Guest starring" a real clunker of a sentence start. The reception section also needs to note which critic gave it a thumbs up. Alientraveller 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed this article has been renominated on WP:GAC; I am not going to review this article myself, but I wanted to do some copyediting on it to clean up some prose issues. Hope I didn't step on any toes, and good luck with the nomination! &mdash;Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
Much better. Alientraveller 10:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, M ASEM 06:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reception - deleted section
I deleted the entire section dealing with robots and the future. The only reference is a Toronto Star article which links only to the Wikipedia article on the Toronto Star. When I tried to Google-fu the reference, I found only references which quoted this article. Hence, multi-paragraph and quote deletion. It is potentially a good section, if someone else can track the reference properly. However, the final paragraph of non-sourced speculation should still be cut. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)