Wikipedia:Peer review/Homer Simpson/archive2

Homer Simpson edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have it at FA status by the end of the year. It still has a ways to go, but any tips or advice would be most welcome.

Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick comments

"as become the most popular and influential character in the series" - needs a reference

Per WP:LEAD, references are not needed in the lead if they are provided later on, and a lot of evidence of this is provided in the reception and influence sections

I just prefer to see disputable statements like this to be linked to a ref

"embodies ...stereotypes" also

What's wrong with that?

I meant it having a ref too

e Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" - appears twice in the intro

"nt "D'oh!", is now included in the Oxford English Dictionary." since what edition? needs reference

Reference is provided in the d'oh section. Year is now included

I am not 100% happy with naming of the section "Character"

Any suggestions for what it could be renamed to?

"Character development" should probably be development

I've checked some other FAs, and they all call it "character development"

since article talks about appearances in the show, what about appearances in other places?

I am extremely against "in pop culture" lists. Now if we're talking about something reported in reliable sources like Homer giving a Leno monologue or appearing in the cancer special, yes. But if we're talking about "Homer appeared in the Family Guy episode PTV where he was hit by Stewie" then I say no because most of these appearances are extremely minor and NN.

I added "series" at teh end of the title of the section Role... which might not be 100% correct. It might have been better to use franchise instead. Anyways, try to split the show and other parts of the franchise, and present them separately.

Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The role in the Simpsons section is only about his role in the show. His other appearances may be given their own section later (I haven't decided yet). Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then try having a section with his role other parts (e.g. games?) When I reviewed the article, it was 100% targeted at the series while made the reader feel like Homer might have a role somewhere else. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The book The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer includes a chapter analyzing Homer's character from the perspective of Aristotelian virtue ethics." should be expanded and moved to the analysis section. Even though I have the philosophy book, I don't feel qualified to write about it. --Maitch (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]