Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Simpsons/archive1


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

The article was removed 08:25, 13 May 2007.

Review commentary
All but one of the images (the picture of the writing staff) are missing source information (one screenshot has the source as "The Simpsons", which is insufficient). Until source information is given on all the images in the article, it is not of featured article quality.

EDIT: Though I (Helltopay27) no longer have any qualms with the article, Zagalejo has expressed concern over prose quality and lack of sources as other issues that may keep this article from being up to FA standards.

This article has been nominated for the main page on April 19, and this process should go quickly for it to meet its deadline. If it is not, then it should be removed from as a Featured Article of the Day candidate. Helltopay27 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, why don't you post this complaint at the talk page before nominating it for FAR. The people here has too much to do already. Anyway, I will try and fix your objection within a few days. --Maitch 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Because it's a featured article when it clearly violates the featured article criteria, and therefore, never should've been listed as a featured article to begin with. I think that would, you know, be a priority. Simply posting it on the talk page doesn't acknowledge the fact that it shouldn't be a featured article. Helltopay27 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you post your complaint first at the talk page, you can get it fixed without bothering everybody else. --Maitch 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am bothering everyone? I'm sorry that I'm forcing everyone that I'm bothering into performing a standard function of this website. Helltopay27 20:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed your complaint on the FP request page and we were already trying to get image sources before you even did this. -- Scorpion 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, thanks. The only thing that doesn't have source information is the cast photo. I've removed my objection to its main page appearance; however, it seems that some others here have issues with the article's featured status other than images. Helltopay27 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that image source queries belong on the talkpage, and that a month-long FAR process is unnecessary in regard to images. &mdash; Deckiller 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maitch has given every image bar Image:Simpsons cast.png and Image:Simpsons on Tracey Ullman.png a correct source. I have asked the guy who uploaded them both originally, before they were FU reduced, to see if he can give the source. Gran2 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Helltopay27, per WP:FAR instructions, would you mind notifying WikiProjects listed on the talk page with The Simpsons ? The original author is aware. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done so. Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't notice it on the FAR instructions. Helltopay27 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There are other problems besides the images. Lots of things lack adequate sources, and the quality of prose is inconsistent.  The plot section, in particular, needs a major overhaul.  Also, the article should say something about Education in The Simpsons, which is a major theme (at least it was during the golden years).  I have a few other comments that have been sitting in the talk page; some have been addressed, but some haven't. (If my comments aren't clear, please say so!) Zagalejo 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As said before, we can't mention every single theme of the series. If you could be specific with the plot section, it would help. -- Scorpion 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't mention every theme, but, in order for the article to be reasonably comprehensive, we should say something about Springfield Elementary and the all jokes about the American education system. In the golden years, at least, that was a huge component of the show.  If you went through every episode, you'd probably find more school-related jokes than political jokes.  (Indeed, I think the article exagerrates the importance of the show's political commentary.  Until recently, the show almost never addressed topical political issues.  Most of its political jokes were general comments about corruption and incompetence.)
 * There are several problems with the plot section.
 * This is a poorly-constructed sentence: "Some examples include: Richard Nixon shown as a friend of the devil in "Treehouse of Horror IV", George H. W. Bush was portrayed as a cantankerous nemesis to Homer in "Two Bad Neighbors", Al Gore's seemingly banal personality being ridiculed, Jimmy Carter as a breakdancing hick, Bill Clinton claiming to have engaged in bestiality in Homer to the Max (Clinton also called himself "...a pretty lousy President." in another episode), and the United Nations is frequently shown to be an incompetent and bickering organization." Review the article on parallelism.
 * I also contest the claim that "the United Nations is frequently shown to be incompetent." Off the top of my head, I can only think of one episode that joked about the UN (You Only Move Twice).  There may have been a few more, but the article suggests that UN-bashing is a common theme of the Simpsons, which isn't true.
 * Claims like "There are many episodes of The Simpsons which are less pleasing to social conservatives" need to be sourced.   Find some newspaper or magazine articles to support this statemtn.  Though it's probably true, I don't actually recall any public outcry about Homer's Phobia, which is one example used in the article.
 * Does the paragraph abot social conservatives really belong in "Plots," anyway? The reactions section might be more appropriate.
 * This doesn't concern the plot section, but what the heck is a "quaternary character"? Someone like Nana Van Houten? Zagalejo 05:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the fact that the article is under review mean that it won't be able to make the main page on April 19, because that is the day we really want for it. -- Scorpion 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It should still be on the main page. I think it's somewhat unfair that an image problem is going to turn into a fiasco, so I don't think the editors should be penalized. But it will be a good idea to make the most of these next 19 days. &mdash; Deckiller 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zagalejo, having brought its page up to FA staus I'm entirely sure that there was no public outcry towards Homer's Phobia. The only thing I found against it was the fact that a Russian used to try and get The Simpsons from Russian television, and that the censors were completely against it. So that statement should probably be changed or sourced, the source can then be added to the Homer's Phobia article. Gran2 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. All images have sources now. --Maitch 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC. I don't know where the idea it's going to be on the main page on April 19 is coming from:  April 19 isn't chosen.   has raised concerns about prose and sourcing.  The article was promoted over 's concerns about prose and my concerns about sources, as well as other Objects; further, not all supporters identified themselves as major contributors to the article (something that is in the FAC instructions but rarely upheld).  Move to FARC to examine these concerns further.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3), prose (1a), and sourcing (1c). Marskell 12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If anyone can help fix these issues, that would be greatly appreciated. Sjones23 00:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The images are already fixed, and the problems cited by Zagalejo have been fixed to his liking as well. Gran2 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite... I still have some concerns, which I've posted on Maitch's talk page. Zagalejo 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, that was just my interpretation of the situation. Gran2 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can help make this FARC unscathed if we can. Deckiller and anyone else, once again, if you can fix up these issues from Maitch's talk page post on Zagalejo's concerns, that would be greatly appreciated and will help greatly on this article. Thanks. Sjones23 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done everything Zagalejo has asked me to do, so unless some new concerns comes up, then I think it is time to close this FARC. I will of course still respond to messages on the talk page. --Maitch 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not crazy about relying on Turner so much to say what influenced the show and what didn't. Incidentally, I just got a hold of Turner's book, and it seems like a lot of the phrases used in the article are exact quotes of what Turner says, even though they're not presented as such.  Phrases like "sitcom as a vehicle for social commentary" and "fat jovial slob as protagonist" are lifted directly out of Turner's diagram on page 44.  I we do use these exact quotes in the article, we need to mark them off with quotation marks to make it absolutely clear that they are not our words.  Of course, the alternative would be to paraphrase.
 * However, I'd still like to avoid Turner altogether as far as influences for the show go, and see what the Simpsons creators themselves said. Turner admits that he never actually talked to anyone on the show.  That said, Turner is OK for describing common themes and plot devices, since that doesn't require interaction with the show staff.
 * I'd also like to say that there are still some prose problems in the article, but I don't want to try the tackle those until we've reached consensus on the content.
 * I don't want to come across as a dick here. I just think an article about The Simpsons should be excellent, and not just good enough. Zagalejo 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you got the Turner book, then could you please try and rewrite that paragraph yourself. --Maitch 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have one more final exam to get through; then I'll turn my attention to that section. Although I think the entire article could always benefit from some copyediting.  Does anyone else out there want to comment on the prose? Zagalejo 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple examples of prose concerns so that my comments don't seem unfounded: (These are just samples; the entire prose could benefit from some polishing.)
 * Lisa sometimes plays a different solo on her saxophone and something different happens when the family enters the living room to sit on the couch. This is a run-on sentence, and having "sometimes" and "something" in the same sentence doesn't sound right.
 * The title family and supporting characters appear on everything from action figures (see World of Springfield) to t-shirts to posters. The family appears on action figures? Zagalejo 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have something to say? I can't believe that I'm the only one who thinks this article could be better. Zagalejo 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Every article could be better. The point of this process is to determine whether it still meets FA criteria. -- Scorpion0422 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm currently copyediting the article; so far I've done half and will go through the rest tomorrow. Why does so much debate circulate about the bad quality of the prose and no-one attempt to fix it? Personally I believe the first half is now of FA quality prose although I'm fully open to comments. JameiLei 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it takes a long time to write FA quality prose - much longer than it takes to register these informal FARC comments. I've spent hours wrestling with single sentences because I wasn't satisfied with the wording.  After Monday, I'll have signifiantly more time available for Wikipedia, so I'll try to pitch in then. Zagalejo 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I registered my strong object on the FAC; the article was promoted on fan and Project support over many significant objects (also, without significant contributors identifying themselves as required by FAC instructions). In addition to my concerns with the sourcing, there were important prose objects on the FAC, including Tony's.  It was promoted anyway.  Such is the nature of Wiki.  It's an embarrassment that some Projects promote their articles regardless of quality.  In contrast, note that I've never seen a medical article promoted on "fan support" from WikiProject Medicine participants.  Even when a well-respected member puts up an FAC, it doesn't get approved by medical project members unless it is truly excellent.  It's too bad other Projects don't demand excellence in their articles, but consensus on Wiki makes it fairly futile to lodge Opposes when articles come from Projects with a large number of members. When an article will inevitably pass on "fan support", I don't expend my energy; I learned that lesson from The Simpsons. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. I've seen plenty of articles that were failed because of one comment, despite overwhelming project support. Raul must have thought that your comments had no standing if he promoted the article over them. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Example, pls, of another article with this level of fan Supports that failed? And he thought the multiple prose arguments had no standing as well?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The question here: do the deficiencies remain? Marskell 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How do we seriously review an article that was promoted on fan support, has fan support, and with the list of External links like this one has? As to Tony's concerns about prose, here are some current samples of "compelling" and "brilliant" prose in this article, from the bottom:
 * There has been talk of a possible feature-length Simpsons film ever since the early seasons of the series.
 * For a long time the project was held up.
 * There was trouble finding a story that was right for a film, and the crew did not have time to complete a film, since they already worked full time year-round on the show.
 * Really compelling. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned once, yes; the quality of prose on the article is dreadful. However, I am ploughing my way through gradually and doing a thorough copyedit. As my exams loom (they start one week in fact) it is becoming harder and harder to find the time to copyedit. If you wish to criticize the prose, by all means criticize anything upto the 'Paragraphs' heading, but please refrain from 'slagging off' that which has not been done. Thank you. JameiLei 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;article is still on the fence. Take your time, Jamei; I'm sure Marskell will leave the FARC up for at least another week or so. Many of us try to avoid coercion as much as possible. &mdash; Deckiller 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Glancing through it:
 * Although the Treehouse series is meant to be seen on Halloween, in recent years new installments have premiered after Halloween. This is due to Fox's current contract with Major League Baseball's World Series. - needs further explanation. What effect does one have on the other?
 * The show is known for its frequent use of celebrity guest stars, who often play a stylised version of themselves. - cite? Is that really a major reason it is "known"?
 * Alongside the main cast, Pamela Hayden, Tress MacNeille, Marcia Wallace, Maggie Roswell, and Russi Taylor are regular cast members who voice several recurring characters - bit messy. What's the difference between a "main" cast member, and a "regular" one? "Several" is pretty redundant as well.
 * The Simpsons has been animated by many different studios over the past 18 years, both American and international. - as opposed to many of the same studios? Redundant. Using "the past 18 years" also means the sentence will date.
 * Interestingly, Conan O’Brien wrote four scripts before becoming the host of Late Night with Conan O'Brien. - you shouldn't presume you know whether something is interesting.
 * guest written - might need a hyphen, although I'm not sure.
 * For the first three seasons, Klasky Csupo acted as the domestic animation studio although onwards, Gracie Films made the decision to switch the domestic production to Film Roman from season four - I'm not really following the "although onwards". It's not a contradiction, so couldn't it just be "before" (and then no comma)?
 * On 2 May 2004, the actors resolved their dispute with Fox after reaching an agreement. - almost tautological sentence. "Resolving a dispute" and "reaching an agreement" are essentially the same.
 * This looks like it needs more work. Trebor 21:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. All the necessary info is already in the article, but it needs an extensive copy edit and work on improving the sources. The prose issues are typified by the statement(s):"The Simpson family first appeared in animated form as shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show, with the first episode, "Good Night", airing on April 19, 1987]". The "Good Night" fact is crammed into a sentance which should read as "The Simpson family first appeared as shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show on April 19, 1987". The phrase "substituting Bart for his own name" is used twice in the article, but is unclear. These kind of issue are not fatal, and I would guess that a two or three hour ce would bring it over the line. As regards sources, there is no shortage of reliable sources out there. I would definitely like this article to remain FA, and recommend help from [[WP:LoCE.  Ceoil 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not just delist it? It never should have been an FA in the first place.  I mean, if you think this version is bad, then look at what it looked like when it received FA status. No one noticed this stuff? "This team start coming up with episode ideas at the beginning of December." "Several card games such as trump cards and The Simpsons Trading Card Game has also been released." "These pieces usually involve the family in some horror, science fiction, or supernatural setting and often parodies or pays homage to a famous piece of work in those genres; they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show."  I appreciate Jamei's efforts to copyedit the article, but I think it's going to take a team of editors a couple of months to make this article FA-worthy.  I'm committed to doing what I can to help, but I really think it would be best to take our time and rewrite large chunks of this article from scratch. Zagalejo 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed it. I would be a strong Remove on this article, but I strongly Opposed its promotion, and it doesn't feel right to oppose on both ends.  I already Opposed once.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. I reread the article this moring with the intention of a ce, but the work needed is intensive. Some of the statements need deep untangling, many others are too unclear to interprete. Remove. Ceoil 22:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.