Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons (season 5)


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

The list was promoted 04:07, 29 April 2008.

The Simpsons (season 5)
Another season of The Simpsons. Personally, I think each of these lists is better than the last. Anyway, it is fully sourced and I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion0422 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Release Dates" header in the DVD table should have had a little d, per WP:HEAD so I changed it. Meets the criteria, and follows MOS, so I Support. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

after Canterbury and remove "and".-- Crzycheetah 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Good stuff. Although I do think at times it verges on over-detailing certain things, it looks all good to me. After tweaking a weensy bit of grammar myself, the only issue I'd have to bring up is Compared to previously produced episodes, the episode featured several elements that could be described as silly and cartoonish. This was a result of the staff's careless attitude towards the end of season four. The episode ran long which led to the creation of the rake sequence, which became a memorable moment for this episode. Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again.[9]
 * Firstly, a source would be great for "silly and cartoonish" - this could be considered POV. If ref 9 at the end of the paragraph does support this, it would be nice to have a secondary source if one's available.
 * Secondly, "the staff's careless attitude" might need to be reworded. Reading it as it is, I'm not sure if they really just couldn't give a damn, or if they just weren't trying as hard, or any other possibility. What does the commentary say?
 * I'm taking "the episode ran long" to mean that it went overtime - which led to the creation of the rake sequence? Wouldn't they add in all the extra rakes if the episode ran short? I swear I'd heard that. Am I wrong?
 * I think an IP must have changed that, and we missed it. It's supposed to be short.
 * "Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again." Could we lose all of this? This is the kind of over-detail I was talking about. The article's about season 4 as a whole, and shouldn't spend too long highlighting individual episodes. I don't see this serving much of a purpose unless it's supposed to be talking about the staff's "careless attitude", in which case trimming a bit might be nice.
 * I'll be happy to support with changes made or some kind of reply. — 97198   talk  09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made all of the changes. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Looks great! — 97198   talk  13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Are there any information about ratings? Also, it would be better if this page had a reception section where you could mention some quotes from TV experts; both positive and negative comments if available. -- Crzycheetah 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that this is a fifteen year old season, so there isn't much from reliable sources on the internet. As for ratings info, I probably could try to dig something up. -- Scorpion0422 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many archives on the internet nowadays, though. Glad to see the ratings section. One more question, for the 86 - 5 episode, you use both "&" and "and" in the writers' column, shouldn't you use a comma instead of the "&" symbol?-- Crzycheetah 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the episode was split into four parts. The first was written by Greg Daniels & Dan McGrath, the second by Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, the third by Bill Canterbury and the fourth by Conan O'Brien. -- Scorpion0422 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, then I would just add a
 * The reason is that the episode was split into four parts. The first was written by Greg Daniels & Dan McGrath, the second by Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, the third by Bill Canterbury and the fourth by Conan O'Brien. -- Scorpion0422 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, then I would just add a
 * Maybe, but I'd prefer to keep it to three lines rather than four. -- Scorpion0422 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I made two minor edits in terms of style. References show not be put in the middle of sentences. They should go after punctuation (commas, full stops, etc.). ISD (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.