Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons (season 2)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is fully sourced and modeled after The Simpsons (season 1) and The Simpsons (season 8), both of which are FLs. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't like the last three one-sentence paragraphs at the end of the lead. The DVD paragraph needs more info...maybe something about sales should be added? The paragraph about "new recurring characters" is trivial and should be removed, I think.The lead overall needs a copyedit.--Crzycheetah 03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I think listing debut characters is notable enough because many important recurring characters were introduced this season. As for DVD info, I checked for some sales info, but I wasn't able to find anything. -- Scorpion0422 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How long is the full version of the opening sequence? 1 min? Who switched timeslots? What was the reason behind it? Despite these questions, I like the Development section. I still don't like the lead, it doesn't flow well. The sentences just don't relate to each other.--Crzycheetah 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for the info for you and I think the full opening is a minute and a half, but I'm not sure, so I won't add it (yet). As for the rest of the info, I think the show switched timeslots because networks have a history of putting new high rated shows against old favourites. I tried to work on the lead, but I really couldn't do anything about the flow. Just about the only solution would be to move some of the info, but then that would make the lead too short. -- Scorpion0422 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeSupportI am opposing until my questions are answered. I feel that the info about full opening and switching timeslots is incomplete right now, so either complete it or remove it.--Crzycheetah 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- You're lucky you opposed when you did, I was about five minutes away from promoting the page. I have added info that will address two of your concerns (I think), as for your other concern about who made the show switch, do mean the specific person or just generally who did it? Because it was the Fox Network that decided to switch the show, but I can guarantee that I won't be able find out who the specific person was. -- Scorpion0422 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that you were about to promote it and leave my questions unanswered, so I hurried. I meant what network, of course. It wasn't hard, was it? Anyway, nicely done, congrats. :) --Crzycheetah 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're lucky you opposed when you did, I was about five minutes away from promoting the page. I have added info that will address two of your concerns (I think), as for your other concern about who made the show switch, do mean the specific person or just generally who did it? Because it was the Fox Network that decided to switch the show, but I can guarantee that I won't be able find out who the specific person was. -- Scorpion0422 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for the info for you and I think the full opening is a minute and a half, but I'm not sure, so I won't add it (yet). As for the rest of the info, I think the show switched timeslots because networks have a history of putting new high rated shows against old favourites. I tried to work on the lead, but I really couldn't do anything about the flow. Just about the only solution would be to move some of the info, but then that would make the lead too short. -- Scorpion0422 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How long is the full version of the opening sequence? 1 min? Who switched timeslots? What was the reason behind it? Despite these questions, I like the Development section. I still don't like the lead, it doesn't flow well. The sentences just don't relate to each other.--Crzycheetah 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think listing debut characters is notable enough because many important recurring characters were introduced this season. As for DVD info, I checked for some sales info, but I wasn't able to find anything. -- Scorpion0422 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems to be of comparable quality to the existing FLs on this subject.--Pharos 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Informative and well-sourced. As good as the lists it models. --Brandt Luke Zorn 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The rest of the article is great, but the lead is too short and hasn't really given me a clear picture overall of the rest of the article, like seasons 1 and 8 did. How many viewers per week? Clearly, the season did not win as many awards as 1 and 8, but what was critical reception like? I'll support after the lead is expanded. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason the lead looks shorter than the other seasons is because I split all of the development info into its own section. Season 8 has a long awards paragraph because there were a LOT more awards in 1997 than there were in 1991. -- Scorpion0422 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but personally I would reduce the summaries to one-line intros, since they are available in the episode guides themselves. Instead I would mention awards and 1st appearances of recurring characters (in the notes for each episode, I know they are mentioned elsewhere.) Kappa 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]