Talk:Homer Defined

Censorship

I changed the censorship title to semi-censorship, because it really isn't censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Stone Cutter (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homer Defined/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The language is very poor in places, so as to occasionally impede understanding. An example is the sentence "Gewirtz came into the writers' room to pitch several stories." which is very detached and presents more questions than it answers. I did some copy-editing, but there are still major issues with the language. Another example is the "Reception" section, where the verb "say" is repeated infinitely instead of using synonyms. This section also makes excessive use of quotations, rather than summarising and rewriting the critics' opinions. There are also too many single- or two-sentence paragraphs, and one very short section ("Cultural references"). This should be avoided, see Wikipedia:Layout#Body_sections.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The "Reception" section contains three reviews, the latter two of dubious reliability, leaning more towards blogs than reliable news sources. I know how hard it can be to find reviews of old television shows, but the article really needs some more reliable sources. For the moment, the vast majority of the sourcing comes from the DVD commentary and a couple of other sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As mentioned above, the "Cultural references" section is far too short. In any Simpsons episode there is always a wealth of cultural references to refer to. Furthermore, it is not enough to simply mention the cultural references, but they must also be put in the context of how they relate to the plot etc.

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:

   I will put the article on the normal one-week hold, for the writer to get a chance at addressing the issues. What I would really recommend, however, is to put the article up for a peer review, to help improve language and style to the level expected of a Good Article. For an example of a much more complete article, covering an episode from the same period, see Treehouse of Horror II. Good luck! Lampman (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Scorpion and I will be working on addressing your concerns this coming week. Theleftorium 22:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by how much the article has been improved in such short time. It seems ready for GA now, I just have a couple of comments. I see you've removed the cultural references section entirely; I guess this was just as well if you couldn't find anything to provide context. I also like the new Magic picture, since it's closer in time.

My only real issue is with the removal of the screen shot. I'm not a big fan of copyright paranoia, so this always irritates me a bit. I always find that a screen shot helps give an immediate association with the episode in question, if chosen correctly. In this case it also helped illustrate the shadows and back-lighting used in the plant, which was really quite advanced for such an early episode. However, it seems you have removed also this information, I'm not quite sure why. The image had proper fair use rationale, and served a purpose, so I have to say I strongly disagree with its removal. Lampman (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've brought up the image issue on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Screenshots_of_television_shows. As for the text about the animation, I removed it because it was only one sentence and didn't fit in anywhere. Theleftorium 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That image failed WP:NFCC#8 as the article stood - it served no purpose and was not necessary to illustrate any text. (That's not to say a screenshot couldn't be found from the episode that doesn't, of course). Non-free images should only be included when they clearly pass WP:NFCC, and the onus is on the includer of the material to prove that. I would be very concerned indeed if GA reviewers are leaning on contributors to break Wikipedia policy in order to pass GAR. Black Kite 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, I've clearly stated above how including the image would be in compliance with the non-free content criteria. Theleftorium: if the episode was truly revolutionary in the graphical development of the show, should not this information be included? If you have problems incorporating it in the main body of the text, simply put it as the image caption with a reference. As far as I can see, there is no imperative that caption info be repeated in the main text. Lampman (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I assure you I'm not being silly. If that's really a revolutionary development in the history of the show, and if that can be reliably sourced, and if that screenshot shows that development in a way that couldn't be described in text, then you might have the basis of a rationale for a non-free usage. Otherwise... Black Kite 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lampman, but where did you get the information that this episode was "revolutionary in the graphical development of the show"? There's nothing about this episode's animation that is revolutionary. Theleftorium 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that might have been a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the director did say he wanted to make the control room "look the best it had to date", and inserted shadows and back-lighting effects towards this end. I still think it's a detail worth including, since at present there's a lot on the script but hardly anything on the animation, which creates problems with criterion 3a. Lampman (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't create a problem with 3a because it is not a main aspect of the topic. The animation in this episode looks the same as in any other episode. I also really dislike the idea of adding a non-free image just to illustrate one single sentence that is rather unimportant anyway and can easily be described in words. Theleftorium 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the animation is an important aspect of an article about, well, animation? Regardless of whether it is revolutionary or not, the animation is just as important a part of an episode as the script. I recently reviewed the article Treehouse of Horror II, which contains plenty of information on the animation, but here there is next to nothing (apart from brief mentions of Milhouse's mother looking a bit like him, and Amadopoulos looking like Onassis.) This seems to me a serious violation of 3a, when one of the main aspects of the topic is simply left out, and for no good reason. Lampman (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've restored the text. But the reason I removed it originally was that you said one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Now the article should meet the GA criteria. Theleftorium 13:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why I suggested it as an image caption. I still don't understand the reluctance to include the image; criterion 6 says a GA should be "Illustrated, if possible, by images...relevant to the topic", and NFCC allow images that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The visual impression of "shadows and back-lighting effects" in a cartoon is something that's hard for the reader to fully envisage without visual aid.

If you have some sort of principal resentment against non-free images, then I guess I'll have to respect that. How is this for a compromise: if I insert the picture it will be my editorial decision and my responsibility. Would that be acceptable, or would you remove it? Lampman (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any principal resentment against non-free images. In fact, I've uploaded quite a few of them. However, in this case I think the text is pretty self-explanatory and doesn't need to be illustrated. Plus this sentence is just a tiny piece of the whole article. It's not like there's a large paragraph devoted to the scene. Theleftorium 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So you would object to anyone else inserting the image? Lampman (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would. However, I wouldn't revert your edit. Instead I'd ask for a second opinion at WT:NFC or somewhere else. Perhaps we should do that? Theleftorium 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Theleftorium asked me to look the image over. I don't think there's any problem including the image per NFCC, with the following caveats:

• The infobox caption needs to mention the shadows and lighting
• The image page itself needs to be a bit more exacting in its rataionle (it's all boilerplate right now, but should be updated to include that its being used to show the shadows/etc, as well as defining one of the critical moments.
• (And not so much on the image) to help that one one-sentence paragraph, see if you can add more that contrasted why they never did add the shadows before or the like. Possibly thinking beyond this one episode might help, I found this google books search result that's incomplete but has some general quotes on SNPP's influence that could possibly be helpful). Fixing this one-sentence paragraph is not critical to keeping the image, but it will help avoiding the hanging aspect of it. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think you've got this one wrong, Masem. That looks to me like wedging a one-sentence piece of trivia into the article to justify a decorative image. I'd say it still fails WP:NFCC#1 because the reader doesn't need an image to understand what "shadows" or "backlighting" are. It's not an important part of the article so it isn't needed to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article (WP:NFCC#8). If I came across that image at random, to be honest I'd remove it.Black Kite 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• In addition, this is definitely not the first time they have used shadows like this on the show. It's just the first time they did this kind of lightning in Homer's sector at the plant, which is a pretty trivial fact if you ask me. Theleftorium 14:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we just find a different image? I'm sure that there's some content in the article that may require a screenshot far more than the backlighting. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, there's nothing in this article that requires a screenshot. Everything is easily conveyed in words. Theleftorium 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify, I did not mean to say that something necessarily required it. Just that if anything did, it wasn't this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I could probably think of about a dozen things that could be illustrated by screenshots, if the control room image is so objectionable. The article says that Luann Van Houten "was designed to look very similar to Milhouse". How do you make a grown woman look like a young boy? The text is of little help to understand this. Aristotle Amadopoulos "was designed to look like" Aristotle Onassis. How was this done? Critics were particularly happy about Magic Johnson's appearance, but how was he animated? Etc., etc. None of this can be fully expressed in words, unless you write a thousand words, which conventional wisdom holds is the minimum to fully express the content of one picture.

I cannot in good conscience promote an article with a philosophy that's essentially user-hostile, and a reading of policy that is overly rigid and entirely misguided. A WT:NFC discussion would be of little help; that page is for discussion of general policy interpretation, not specific cases. As far as I understand, this issue was recently discussed on that page, without much of a consensus being reached. At the same time I don't want to fail an article over what is essentially different philosophies. I will put it up for a second opinion; basically I wash my hands of this issue, per WP:DGAF. Lampman (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The examples you bring up are very minor parts of the article. WP:NFCC says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"; a sentence is not a "topic". If a whole paragraph or section was about the design of Johnson, for example, then I wouldn't have a problem with adding an image of him. Theleftorium 14:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• If the second opinion request is re: the image, then I don't think it's inclusion or exclusion should affect GA status. I don't mind whether there is one or not, but to mandate a fair use image is entirely wrong. If one is added though, as long as the rationale is well and appropriate, it's fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And more importantly, as long as it passes all the criteria of WP:NFCC, which this one didn't. As you say though, the prose is 99% of the GA review. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

5th opinion

The reviewer cannot mandate that an image is included. Serious concerns about the inclusion of this image have been raised. Therefore it would be best if the reviewer abandoned their insistence on the inclusion of this image and passed the article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do a re-review since it looks like the first reviewer is deferring the decision. If I don't see anything I'll pass it, if I see something I'll note it here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no further issues with the article. I do have a query though, but the answer doesn't prevent GA status: 5 of the references are DVD commentaries for the episode. Were there actually 5 separate commentary tracks or was it figured out who said what within a couple commentary tracks? In either case, this article passes as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article! :) No, there was only one commentary for this episode. Theleftorium 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Shelbyville

Shelbyville re-appears in the monorail episode, again as Springfield's twin. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homer Defined. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824185754/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=simpsons%2Fpart4 to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=simpsons%2Fpart4

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) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)