Talk:The Simpsons Guy/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. I saw the episode- thought it was abysmal. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, point 1- the lead image. I see it has survived two deletion discussions, and I can see the motivation for an image showing the clash of styles, but I think it's time for it to go- it's now redundant to the other image, which also shows the controversial scene which is a moderately valuable addition.
 * Done &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the lead could be a little beefier. Some more on how the crossover came about would be nice.
 * Done &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware the falling down the canyon thing is a reference to Bart the Daredevil... I'm wondering if there's any way this can be worked in.
 * Done with reference &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling the production section is in the wrong order. I think the first idea should come before the announcement?
 * Done &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Groening, James L. Brooks and Al Jean also gave their approval since Appel had been a writer-producer on The Simpsons for four seasons." Since? Your source says that they accepted because he'd been a writer?
 * Done &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's a "table read"?
 * Done &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Be aware of MOS:LQ.
 * Do we have articles on the episodes referred to in the viewing figures paragraph?
 * No, but there's an article on the season of Resurrection &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Newsday said" Avoid personification. This is just one example. Also, be aware of quotes-within-quotes. There'll be something in the MOS about it somewhere, but you can also rephrase the quotes in an attempt to avoid them.
 * The reception section just feels like a list of quotes. You may want to consider organising based on who was commenting on what aspect, or who agreed with who.
 * Re-organised (<--I love our British spelling) &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a blast through the sources shortly, but, for what it's worth, I'd like to see more by way of newspapers, good magazines and industry publications, and less by way of blogs/entertainment websites- this was a pretty "big" episode, so I assume that the better sources will have paid it some attention. (I've no doubt that scholarly sources will nod to it in the future, too- something to keep an eye out for.)

All for now- hopefully it gives you something to work on before I come back for a bit more. I've made some edits- please do double check. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If this passes, I'm putting the VOX quote as a DYK hook. It's not often that 45 minutes of animation can be called "a blight on humanity itself". &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So, to repeat something I said in the the first run-through, it strikes me that this episode will have been picked up by some highly reputable sources, so these are the kind of thing we should be basing the reception section on; so, for example, it was reviewed for The Independent and The Telegraph, two respected British newspapers. I'm sure something similar will be true in other countries. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added these, thanks for finding them. They simply didn't exist until the British airing a month ago. I don't know what the Telegraph author was watching if he found it to feel more like a stereotypical boring modern Simpsons episode than a stereotypical modern crass Family Guy episode. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Some more bits: The article's not in poor shape- I think it could probably be a good bit better, but, of course, it doesn't need to be perfect for GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Simpsons executive producers Matt Groening, James L. Brooks and Al Jean also gave their approval, because Appel had been a writer-producer on their show for four seasons" I'm still worried about this. Does your source say that they accepted because Appel had been a writer-producer?
 * Page 6: "The trio knew at least that this driver was responsible, as Appel had worked for four seasons as a writer-producer on The Simpsons." &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this justifies the claim you're making in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To me (I know words go together in different people's minds) I'm implying how they trusted Appel from his experience, just as the source says. Can you point how I'm going wrong please? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "After brainstorming ideas and getting creator Seth MacFarlane’s blessing and input, Appel tossed another question mark across the Fox lot at Simpsons creator Matt Groening and executive producers James L. Brooks and Al Jean: May we take your characters on a joyride? The trio knew at least that this driver was responsible, as Appel had worked for four seasons as a writer-producer on The Simpsons. ”From the start Al and Jim and Matt were on board with it being an episode of Family Guy…with the condition ‘Do us proud, please don’t kill Marge, and let us read the script,”’ says Appel. ”But there was a welcomed level of trust on both sides that they weren’t going to rip the script to shreds and we weren’t going to rip Springfield to shreds.”" So, taking only what the article says, the Simpsons people "knew ... that this driver was responsible", and they knew this because "Appel had worked for four seasons as a writer-producer on The Simpsons". We also know that they accepted- the article, quoting Appel, says that "From the start Al and Jim and Matt were on board with it being an episode of Family Guy". At no point in that paragraph, though, are these two things linked in the way that was suggested in the Wikipedia article. To put it another way- "Simpsons trusted Appel because Appel used to work for Simpsons and Simpsons said yes" is what the source says, "Simpsons said yes because Simpsons trusted Appel because Appel used to work for Simpsons" is what the Wikipedia article says. Different claims. (By the way, given that this is a six page source, it'd be nice if you could specify page numbers for the claims you're making.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "When Appel expressed his concern about the length of the episode after the script was read to the show's staff, MacFarlane said that Fox would be happy to make it an hour long" So why wasn't it? And/or what was the previous concern? This doesn't really work as-is.
 * It was an hour with commercials, the same as a 22½ minute regular episode fills a half-hour slot. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are your dashes correct? Could you point out the part of WP:DASH that you're relying upon?
 * What's an "upfront presentation"?
 * Linked. Seems to be American jargon &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Be aware of MOS:LQ
 * "set to Kelis' "Milkshake" [sic]" Why the [sic]? Is that wrong? If so, just cut it out with ellipses.
 * It's sic because it's not the song which was actually used. However, as this is a – clause – it would look a bit odd to ellipse it. But I can do &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "A Fox spokeswoman declined to comment on the joke. MacFarlane, interviewed by Entertainment Weekly, said that although he would be attacked for stating it as such, the joke was "pretty funny... in context"." Could we have references for each of these? If it's sourced to the subsequent reference, repetition would be useful in this context, I feel.
 * If memory serves me, it's all from the same source, but I agree with your proposal &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please double-check that! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As a general note, I'm aware that this article still seems to be evolving- I worry that this might not be ready for GA status on stability grounds. Better for it to be unstable but improving than stagnant, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Some more thoughts- Josh Milburn (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "accepted because they knew Appel" thing is still outstanding.
 * I really don't like "cultural references" sections- it strikes me as trivia. Could the information here not be more neatly incorporated with the rest of the article?
 * I don't want to start a fight, but do we really need that lead image? We have a couple of mentions of the scene, but...

Alright, I've had another look through and I'm going to go ahead and promote. The article's still a long way from perfect, but there have been improvements, and it's certainly not bad. It compares fairly well with a lot of other television GAs. Good work! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)