Talk:So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA and will be adding comments below. Over all the article looks very good, with good referencing. It's great that you are consistent in using the templates cite xxx! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Homer slowly comes out of the coma and strangles Bart. Despite this, Marge and the others are happy that Homer is finally well." - these sentence seems a little strange and the transition between the two are inconguous. Did Homer really "strangle" Bart? And if so, then "Despite this..." seems not to take strangling seriously.

I am not sure how much you know about the show, but the strangling is a common gag in the show. It is pretty much in each episode. But it is a strangling by hand, not by rope or anything like that. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "As the family reminisces together about the past events, Bart raises a seeming non sequitur. Marge asks "Why did you bring that up?" to which Bart replies "It was an amusing episode," half looking at the camera, before quickly adding "of our... lives." Bart knows he is on a television show and knows the kinds of tricks his own writers use to fill up airtime. Such self-consciousness allows The Simpsons to serve as a lesson in modern media discontinuity." - This paragraph is under Production. Do you think that is the best place for it? (Not that I have a better suggestion).

It is a neat idea to have in the article, but I myself had problems locating it in the right section. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the Cultural references section is this sentence: "Professor Frink's suggestion of shrinking a crew of men and one beautiful woman to microscopic size and sending them into Homer in a small ship is a reference to Richard Fleischer's 1966 film Fantastic Voyage." - Should you not mention how Professor Frink fits into the plot in the plot section (since you refer to him here)?

but then the other references should go in there too, which might make the plot overly-detailed... Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the table under "Clip description", most of the entries are full sentences. To be consistent, you should makes them all complete sentences.

how's now? Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the following sentence it is not clear to me where the second set of quotes comes from: Jenny Eliscu said: "Though Groening leaves the writing to the writers and the animating to the animators, he still makes certain that The Simpsons stays true to the original spirit: 'It has to be a celebration'" he says in the interview.

now ? Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The quotes are not clear here: It has been seen as one "of the most consistently funny episodes of the series", which "strikes that perfect balance between perfectly selected classic moments and all new story segments..."

Does it mean: It has been seen as one "of the most consistently funny episodes of the series [which] strikes that perfect balance between perfectly selected classic moments and all new story segments..."? Or are the source of the two quotes not that close in the reference?

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They aren't. Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand your concern about too much detail. However, there should be enough detail that a person unfamiliar with The Simpsons can make sense of the article. So in a few places you could explain a little more to give context. Like the strangling, you could explain that it is a running gag. This article must be accessible to the general reader, not just Simpsons fans. This is part of criteria 3 of the GA criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense! how's now? Nergaal (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

as a side-note, see the image to see what is the gag about :) Nergaal (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha, I see! Good job on the article! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is clear. b (MoS): No MoS errors detected

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): A well referenced article b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on the article subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)