Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bart Simpson


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:36, 10 December 2008.

Bart Simpson

 * Nominator(s): Scorpion 0422

This is the second FA towards a Simpson family FT. It is modelled after Homer Simpson, and is larger and there are some differences between the layout (for example, this one has no development section and the reception and influence sections are merged due to overlap). Huge thank you to Zagalejo and Jackyd101 for their reviews, which helped out quite a bit. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion 0422 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review
 * Image:Bart Simpson.png - Could you replace the link with one that takes us the image a bit better so that we don't have to search all over the site?
 * Done.
 * Image:Groening at comiccon.jpg - The source and author field need to be filled in from Flickr - after the commons bot moves an image, sometimes information is lost or needs to be filled in.
 * Done.
 * I've also fixed the license there. Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Nancy Cartwright.jpg - Please provide a more direct link to this image so the user doesn't have to hunt around the website. Also, if the CC by SA 2.5 license is not mentioned in reference to this image at the website, we need to have that email sent through OTRS.
 * I'm actually not sure if it is on the website, I looked and couldn't find it. According to the image, it was provided in an e-mail sent by the website.
 * I didn't see it, either. Ok, then this needs to go through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a message for the uploading user at commons.
 * Image:New Orleans Chalk Gag.png - I am not entirely convinced by the fair use rationale for this image. What is important in these scenes, as illustrated by the article's discussion, is the words on the chalkboard. I don't think we need an image to convey this. That is, having the image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of these scenes (WP:NFCC #8).
 * Well, I think it does because people who have never seen the show would not know what the sequence looks like, so I think it does add value to the page.
 * From article: In the opening sequence of most Simpsons episodes, the camera zooms in on Springfield Elementary School, where Bart can be seen writing a message on the chalkboard. This message, which changes from episode to episode, has become known as the "chalkboard gag" - As the article makes clear, it is the message on the chalkboard which is essential. The article then goes on to quote several notable "gags", which are verbal jokes. The image is not necessary to understand these jokes. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess this one can go.
 * I have stricken this as it has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:I'm Bart Simpson, who the hell are you?.png - I am not entirely convinced by the fair use rationale for this image. The article states Believing Bart to be a bad role model, several American public schools banned T-shirts featuring Bart next to captions such as "I'm Bart Simpson. Who the hell are you?" and "Underachiever ('And proud of it, man!')". - Since we already have a fair-use image that shows what Bart looks like and this t-shirt is not different from that, we are basically using it as an illustration of Bart (again) plus the words. The image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding (WP:NFCC #8).
 * I think it does, because someone might read through it and wonder what the T-shirt looks like and thus it does significantly increase the understanding. Are you suggesting I change the rationale?
 * The article describes the t-shirt well. The image doesn't add anything and adds redundancy (another copyrighted image of Bart), which is explicitly against the NFCC criteria (NFCC #3 - minimal use). Again, in this situation, it is the words on the t-shirt that are important - the words caused the t-shirts to be banned. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stricken this at is has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can work through these issues carefully. (Note: I do feel your pain regarding the restrictions of fair use on Wikipedia, but the restrictions are quite tight to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. None of us wants that. Imagine if Fox sued us!) Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a list of images that I might be able to include. Now that I have room, I thought I would add one of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon. Would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion 0422 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to see the image and its licensing. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Bart_-_Macys.png. -- Scorpion 0422 00:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I would say no on this. It is just a big balloon shaped like Bart. Since we already know what Bart looks like from the non-free image in the article, we can imagine a big balloon shaped like him. We don't really need an image to convey this idea. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can imagine what it would look like, but that doesn't mean that you would be correct. When i first heard that there was a Bart balloon, I assumed it would just be Bart, I didn't know it would depict him skateboarding. -- Scorpion 0422 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you could just add that fact to the description in the text. We are running into the same problem that we ran into the with the t-shirt here. We are replicating images of the copyrighted Bart and we don't have a compelling reason to do so. With the screenshot from the movie, we are showing a famous scene from a movie, Bart skateboarding, and Bart naked. These are compelling reasons to show the Bart figure again. In the case of the t-shirt and the balloon, we don't have any such compelling reasons. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed both of the images, but now there is a large ugly imageless section... Maybe I'll throw an image of Michael Jackson in there. -- Scorpion 0422 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were joking! Image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: What do you think about a shot from the Simpsons Movie skateboarding scene (either nude or not)? This would illustrate both the famous scene and Bart skateboarding - it is a famous scene identified by the article which is a bit hard to picture and shows Bart doing one of his trademark things? Awadewit (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give that a try. I can't get his full frontal scene (because of how it works, in that portion of the sequence, the rest of his body is blocked out), but I'll try an image. -- Scorpion 0422 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Bart Simpson - Skateboarding.png -- Scorpion 0422 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is much better. I've added more to the rationale and fixed the description. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 10 (Groening, Matt...) is lacking a page number
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/
 * Well it looks like a site that just posts news, but I have removed it.
 * http://www.everyhit.com/index.html
 * Again, it's a (sort of) news site and only posts chart information, no OR or opinions.
 * See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 11 Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the BBC credit that site as their source for all music-related lists on the show Who Dares Wins. Gran2 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is current ref 64 (Cantor, P...) a journal article? If so, the journal needs to be in italics. cite journal would be good to use here.
 * I'm actually not sure, I didn't add the ref. However, I have converted it.
 * Might be a good idea to use Google Scholar to check on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, I have fixed the ref, and added a link to the article. -- Scorpion 0422 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as MSNBC, BNET,, etc.
 * BNET actually doesn't stand for anything, and according to it's article, MSNBC doesn't stand for anything, it's just a combination of MSN and NBC.
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals even when they are in the original. (I noticed current ref 134 (Berke, Richard L....) but there may be others)
 * Yeah, the New York Times in particular likes to do that, I usually avoid it but I guess that one slipped through. Fixed.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support — Article is excellent in terms of content and sourcing. I can see no serious problems that would prevent this article from being promoted. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Comment - There is a link: Radioactive Man, which is a pipe to a redirect to a disambiguation page. William Avery (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Scorpion 0422 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. As usual, I skimmed over the article to look for any major problems, and found none. Now I didn't go hunting through links to look for a misdirected one; I tried to read it as a random reader would. The article is informative enough and to a greater extent, well-enough sourced. And all the image-related problems have been fixed. Tez kag 72 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes, pls check the dabs in the toolbox, pls review punctuation per WP:MOS (full sentences get a full stop), and something seems amiss with the caps here: Bart was described as "Television's king of 1990",[108] "television's brightest new star"[109] ...  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support once all the MOS issues are resolved. If only we were able to write articles like this for all fictional characters... --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, but which unresolved MOS issues are you referring to? -- Scorpion 0422 18:53, 8 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.