Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stark Raving Dad/archive2


 * 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 Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010.

Stark Raving Dad

 * Nominator(s): Scorpion 0422  01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous nomination failed more due to a lack of reviews than any serious problems, but I think the article has improved quite a bit since when I first nominated it. Enjoy. -- Scorpion 0422  01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links; one dead link, to thesimpsons.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had fixed the link before you mentioned it. The checker just didn't update immediately. Thanks for the comment. -- Scorpion 0422  13:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * The capitalization is inconsistent for article titles in the footnotes. See WP:CITE/ES for one possible model. But chose one style and stick to it.
 * Basically, the title is whatever it was in the original article. I'll work on consistency. -- Scorpion 0422  01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely written. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:
 * Ref 13: "The Record" not specific enough; there are hundreds of papers called that.
 * I know, and that's why it links to The Record (Bergen County).
 * My mistake, missed the link, I'm an idiot. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 23: The Silhouette also needs further identification
 * I'm actually not sure about that one, because I used a version re-printed here.
 * Could it be this? Is a student newspaper a reliable source?
 * I'm not sure, but that statement is also covered by the DVD ref, so I removed the Silhouette ref. -- Scorpion 0422  19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 32: "Slate" is an online magazine and should not be italicised
 * It's still the title of a magazine, and its article uses italics.
 * WP policy is to italicise print sources, not online sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, italics removed. -- Scorpion 0422  19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 38: "Associated Press" is given as the publisher. Can you amplify? AP is a new agency; in what medium does it publish stuff of its own?
 * Not sure about that one, the original article was deleted. I guess it could be removed, since the comment doesn't add much.
 * What makes http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/displaylegacy.php?ID=6129 a reliable source?
 * It's only used for a review, nothing that might be considered controversial.
 * I've researched it a bit and I'd say it's OK, unless someone with more specific knowledge objects. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion 0422  01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Production: "In an early version of script". Feels like "the" should be in there.
 * Unproduced sequels: "was written by a freelance writers". Drop "a".  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion 0422  19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I'm a little surprised that this article doesn't seem to have had a thorough review before now, as the Simpsons are normally good value. The article is not bad at all, though the prose could do with some further work. Here are a few suggestions:- Enjoyable, as are most things connected with the Simpsons. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the opening lead paragraph there is too much sketchy detail that does not illustrate the plot well, and in fact provides a confusing picture. I'd cut out most of this, and replace with something simpler and more general; after all, the detailed plot section follows immediately after.
 * Okay, I tried making it more simple, and cut out the bit about the pink shirt. Is that better?
 * "'Stark Raving Dad' was the final episode in the season two production run, but aired as part of season three, over a year after it was completed." This is confusing. Do you mean it was intended as the final episode in season two, but was aired as the opening episode for season three? Please clarify. Also, what was the reason for the long delay in its transmission?
 * Episodes of the show are produced in batches depending on their intended season. The batch for season 2 included 24 episodes, and usually the majority of those episodes are completed before the season airs. However, that does not necessarily mean those episodes are all going to air during their intended season and some get held-over until the next season. Stark Raving Dad was one of those episodes. The reason for the delay is that there were simply too many episodes for season 2. I can try to clarify it, but its tough to do so without going into a lot of detail.
 * "...creator Matt Groening and co-executive producer Sam Simon contributed a lot as well." This is not professional language. You could say "also contributed significantly".
 * Done.
 * "singing-parts" is two words, not hyphenated.
 * Done.
 * "The producers had to screen "Stark Raving Dad" before it was broadcast because it was an old episode." What does this mean?
 * I'm not sure who added that bit, but the source doesn't really give a reason why it was screened.
 * In the "Alternative opening" section, you need to be clearer about who "Bush" is, since both George H.W. and Barbara have been mentioned just before the first "Bush" and George H.W. just after.
 * Well, considering that the sentence is immediately after one that identifies Barbara Bush, and the next line is "Bush immediately sent a reply in which she apologized", I think the reader can figure it out.
 * "However, each episode of The Simpsons takes more than six months to produce..." How can this possibly be?
 * It takes a long time to animate the show. The animation is done in Korea, then sent back. This is standard for most animated shows.
 * "to never be produced" → "never to be produced"
 * Done.
 * "It was the second highest rated show on Fox the week it aired..." Not clear what "It" is referring to.
 * Well, it could either be the Cosby Show or The Simpsons, but only one airs on Fox. But, I changed the "It" to "The Simpsons"
 * Overuse of "as well" as an emphasiser, as in "There have been some less positive reviews as well." Check elsewhere.
 * Yeah, that tends to be one of my weaknesses as a writer: I tend to overuse certain words. Fixed some of them.
 * Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion 0422  16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I was just working through the "Reception" section and I noticed an issue. One para begins with "Jackson's performance received much acclaim." and what follows doesn't really back up that statement. About the nicest thing said is that his performance was "heartfelt". If it really did receive much acclaim, that para should be full of examples of acclaim. More later. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that one. I'm not a big fan of making general statements on reception. Thanks for the comment. -- Scorpion 0422  19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. I did enjoy reading about the episode but I find the writing to be overly casual in places, awkward in others, and sometimes just incorrect. This never received a proper peer review and I think it's suffered from lack of a good independent copyedit. I've provided some sample problems, but it is not a comprehensive list. The whole text needs a fresh pair of eyes.
 * I find the writing in the Plot section to be overly casual not in an suitable tone for an encyclopedia. There are many questionable word and phrase choices. Examples:
 * There are many colloquial, informal phrases like "best present ever" and "strolls off down the road". If they are directly lifted from the dialog in the episode, they should be in quotes.
 * You hyphenate the modifier "20-question" but why not "free thinking"?
 * "When Homer and Michael bid farewell" is strange usage. Normally you bid someone farewell.
 * "excitement is deflated" is very odd to me. A level of excitement can be deflated, but how so excitement itself?
 * The end where you describe how the guys started imitating Michael Jackson seems like an awkward paraphrase of another source—it doesn't flow well at all.
 * It is, it's paraphrasing the episode. The explanation is a bit complex, so its hard to describe it thoroughly but briefly. I've gone through and copyedited the section. This is a very complex episode, so it is rather difficult to write a summary that is brief, to the point and not long-winded but still informative.
 * "while creator Matt Groening and co-executive producer Sam Simon also contributed significantly" Contributed to what? The idea? The pitch?
 * "Homer began acting crazily" The adverb isn't descriptive in any useful way to the reader. Later, committed to what? Rehab? Why would a crazy person be committed to rehab?
 * I'm actually not sure, that's all that is said in the description.
 * "It was later changed to Homer being hospitalized for wearing a pink shirt, an idea pitched by Brooks." The last phrase modifies "pink shirt" as written.
 * How so?
 * "He had called Groening one night and offered to do a guest spot." This is set oddly in the narrative. Is it meant to come after the script was written, or before?
 * Before. I added "so an episode was written for him" to the end of the sentence.
 * Why "read-through" and then "read"?
 * It's the common term for "read-through", just calling it a read sounds less repetitive than using "read-through" in consecutive sentences.
 * "Jackson showed up for the recording session alone and did not use the special trailer that was set up for him." Seems undue detail.
 * Possibly, but I find it interesting that a huge star like Jackson would stipulate in his contract that a trailer be provided for him, but then he wouldn't use it.
 * "Jackson could not take credit for his work on the song because of contractual reasons." Grammar
 * I stopped reading here—lots of work is needed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, I'll work on a copyedit. -- Scorpion 0422  16:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with caveat. What's the source for the plot? It's unsourced right now, and simply saying that "it came from the show" borders on original research. Some sort of secondary source would be good. Other than that, I was pleased with the article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. We used to include a number of references to summaries of the episode. However, inevitably, our summary would include details not listed in those summaries, thus making those details "unsourced". I'm not sure how sourcing the plot to the episode is original research, since the summary doesn't say anything not in the episode (if it included analysis, THEN it would be original research). Besides, there are a number of links on the page that will take a user to an online summary of the episode. -- Scorpion 0422  16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hink, it's standard for Plot sections to lack citations. The citation is assumed to be the work itself. See other literature, TV, or film FAs for other examples. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with that, but oh well. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, largely per Andy Walsh. I think the prose is weak.  The first paragraph of the Production section was quite hard to follow as it jumped around in time; I've reorganized it so that the elements are more or less in chronological order.  I think that's an improvement but it could do with a bit more polishing, and I'm not sure that I have everything right -- for example, I'm assuming that the sequence is Jackson calls and makes the offer, it's accepted, the idea is pitched, and the script is written; though it could also be that he called, the idea was pitched, and then accepted, or even that the script preceded the pitch or acceptance.  (You can tell I am not an expert on TV writing although I think I've corresponded with Mike Reiss in another context.)  Feel free to revert the edit of that article if you don't like it, but regardless I think the article fails on prose. Mike Christie (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.