Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homer's Triple Bypass/1

Homer's Triple Bypass

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: GA status maintained. All outstanding issues seem to have been addressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is very, very short; in fact the out-of-universe information has more or less the same size that the plot of the episode. The problem seems to be that there simply isn't more out-of-universe sources talking about this Simpsons episode and that this is all the size it would ever get. For that reason, "thedemonhog" promoted it to good article, but Reviewing good articles makes an explicit guideline against it: if it is very short for GA standars, it shouldn't be promoted just because "it won't get any better" Benito Sifaratti (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the production section. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, or whatever you're meant to say to not get it delisted. As a key contributor to bring this to GA status, I think it meets the criteria. I've got two other short GAs, After This and Apex Hides the Hurt (why not nominate them for reassessment if you don't like them,) and other short articles get passed. Its quality, not quantity. I'm unsure if you're little grudge against this article is healthy, to be honest. Qst (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's nothing wrong, per se, in being short. In fact I think the article could probably use a copyedit to make it shorter. I've made a couple of edits myself in that direction. The goal is not to eliminate any information, but to present it concisely, without redundant words or phrases. See this link for further suggestions. With the plot copyedited, and the production now expanded, I think the charge of "mostly in-universe" can be dropped, and with that, I lean towards recommending "keep". Geometry guy 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delist - the lead does not summarize the article per WP:LEAD and the "Reception" section is very choppy. I say "weak" because these issues can probably be fixed fairly easily. I would also like to see some additional out-of-universe sources (less reliance on the DVD commentaries) but that's not a deal-breaker. Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "Culture References" section is choppy; see if you can make it flow smoother. I have no problem with the lead. All matters considered, I'd recommend keeping the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA. Lead and reception expansion are probably only minor issues (as in, not much more can be added) which I don't think should hold this back from GA status (that said, please make the suggested changes). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that the article relies so heavily on the DVD commentary is indeed rather troubling.  And the writing is far from great.  A couple of questions, almost at random from the one section I looked at in any detail:
 * "1-600-DOCTORB, was the actual number a real legal clinic, and their lawyers made them change it for subsequent airings." (There's a typo, but I'll fix it.)  Whose lawyers?  The clinic's or The Simpsons'?
 * Could we re-write as the following: "a real legal clinic, whose lawyers"? Or (again) was it The Simpsons's lawyers who insisted on the change?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made the change. Please revert if I guessed wrong (I had to guess because the original was ambiguous) about the meaning.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Silverman added some directorial touches:" What does this mean?
 * "the earlier scene where Grampa Simpson watches him as an infant" Is this referring to Homer as an infant?
 * Could we replace "him" with "Homer"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and did the replacement, as I figure that that's what was meant. The sentence is still rather unclear.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what's an "animatic"?
 * I guess I'd probably go for a (very weak) keep, but some more work on the article wouldn't go amiss. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your concerns. -- Scorpion0422 05:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really; see above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please - lets not start this kinda 'you told me where to get off too so I'll cause trouble for you' crap. All episode articles which are of a decent quality rely so heavily on the DVD commentary. Just because you're annoyed with me over Talk:The Accidental doesn't mean you have to come here to comment, although everyone is welcome, you and I both know you're only here to annoy me. Qst (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wha? Um...  First, I'm not annoyed with you over Talk:The Accidental (though I think it would be good if you'd respond, so we can move on with improving the article); and second I'm not "here to annoy [you]"; I'm here because this article is at WP:GAR!  Look at my contributions.  I didn't connect you with this article at all; perhaps you should take a similar tack, and no feel so personally identified?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as GA - It was good in the first place, and the expansion has made it better, definete keep. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've now copyedited the plot and shaved off a hundred bytes or so, but I'm not the world's greatest copyeditor, so someone else should check it over. But I'm now ready to support keeping the article on the GA list. Geometry guy 19:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)