Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barney Gumble/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:14, 3 January 2009.

Barney Gumble

 * Nominator(s): Tj terrorible1 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

...upon review of the criteria at WP:FA? IMHO your article is 98% of the way there. In my book 98% is an A. So congratulations you have an article that needs a bit of work but is class A none the less. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC) He does not seem to have a problem with the prose. And another reviewer stated that the article had "greatly" improved. Please also note that Scorpion is a biased reviewer, so take none of what he says into consideration.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Opppose
 * The lead is too short and doesn't properly summarize the article
 * The Role in The Simpsons section is overdetailing of minor things, and it only mentions a single post-season 11 episode. It's more of a glorified detailing of what he's done rather than actually being about his role in the show.
 * On that note, it isn't very well-written. There are too many short sentences and not many transitions.
 * The sections don't have proper introductions, for example, the "voice" section starts out "It is not easy for Dan Castellaneta ... " without any kind of introduction. On that note, there should be some more about Castellaneta.
 * The reception section is too small, I'm sure there has to be more out there about him.
 * In the "Merchandise" section, there are only statements backed up by NoHomers.net, which is a fan site. Is FilmCritic.com a RS either?
 * No personality section.
 * The article should follow mentioned titles with (season #, year) as in the FAs Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson
 * Image:Barneyfirst.png doesn't have a fair use rationale.
 * The nominator has ownership issues refuses to discuss things with other users and has reverted many attempts to clean up the page. For example, I got Risker, an excellent and experienced copyeditor to give the page a once-over and he has largely reverted back to "his" version. -- Scorpion 0422  23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Image:Barneyfirst.png is entirely replaceable by the line of text: "the original character had yellow hair," so NFCC #1 doesn't apply there. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I submitted this article for peer review about a week ago (a peer review which is now closed), and had the following impartial reviewer comment:
 * "so take none of what he says into consideration" And that's why this is going to fail. You're dismissing my comments outright without consideration. It's not like I said "opposing due to a lack of pictures of monkeys" or something ridiculous. All of my comments are either policy based, or based on other FAs that I have worked on. -- Scorpion 0422  23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The Role section describes Barney's major appearances. He's had none since "Days of Wine and D'oh'ses", which is why there is no post-season 11 mentions. I don't believe that the Reception section is too small seeing how Barney is a peripheral character. (It's about as big as McClure's.) The same "supposed" NoHomers.net website you are referring to is one that is used in "A Streetcar Named Marge", which is a featured article. And does every character really need a personality section? IMO, there is no further content to be added.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Responses Actually, Troy's is twice the size (and to be fair, TM isn't really up to current standards, even the nominator admits this). And, it's not really a "role" section, it's basically just an appearances section. Who cares if NoHomers is being used in another FA (and I have removed it)? That's not the article being discussed here. Yes, every FA should have personality section (yes, many character pages don't, but that's because they were promoted a while back... And they aren't FAs). Many character FAs have a personality or characteristics section: Padmé Amidala, Jabba the Hutt (although they call it "characterization"), Jason Voorhees, Martin Keamy, Nikki and Paulo, Palpatine, Khan Noonien Singh (although they call it "analysis"). -- Scorpion 0422  00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response Troy McClure does not have a Personality section and yet it's a featured article. Maybe I should get that article to be un-nominated.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 00:49, 30
 * True, but two more recent (and dare I say better) Simpsons FAs, Bart Simpson and Homer Simpson, DO have personality sections. As for your threat of getting Troy delisted, you could go for it, but may I point you towards WP:POINT. --  Scorpion 0422  00:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record: I don't see any chance of TM getting a personality section, all of his personality info is included in the role section. If you want to request its FARC, then please go for it, but that article is not relevant to this discussion. Gran2 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Scorpion0422. Tez kag 72 03:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - My biggest problem with the article is the lack of reception. I'm sure you can find some analysis in Google Books, try this link. You need too fix the stuff Scorpion0422 pointed out as well. — The Le ft orium  08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 19 (McCann...) is lacking a page number
 * What makes http://www.figures.nohomers.net/ a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, couldn't check links, the toolserver's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Went back and checked links with the link checker tool, and they all work. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response 1) When I see the criteria for an FA, IMO, this article meets all of them (although, I will admit that the lead can be expanded): It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate (sources are verifiable and reliable), neutral, stable, structured appropriately, and with consistent citations. 2) Is the NoHomers website any less (or any more) accurate than the other one used, "Simpsons Collectors", which, by the way, doesn't even work any more. 3) I have tried finding Analysis on Barney (at GoogleBooks, by the way) and the most I could come up with is a single mention in a book about Irish stereotypes and a mere reference to the character in a book about TV town drunks.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing "Simpsons Collectors" used in the article as a reference. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. May I also suggest that the nominator not get defensive about comments made, but rather respond to them and attempt to work with the commentators to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The website that I use in this article, "Simpsons Action Figure Information Station", is one, as I pointed out earlier, that was used in "A Streetcar Named Marge", which is an FA, until Scorpion tried to cover up his tracks by deleting it. The website was used as a source in the article the day it became featured. See for yourself.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cover up his tracks", no I was agreeing with you.
 * Use in other FAs doesn't necessarily mean it's a reliable source. That FA was promoted in September 2007, sourcing wasn't necessarily checked back then. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the claim that it's well-written, I disagree. There are a lot of short setences in there, which disrupts the flow of the article. Also, a lot of the sections don't have proper introductions, they just jump into the middle of it. -- Scorpion 0422  17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.