Talk:Trilogy of Error/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I have been bold and altered aspects of the prose where I considered it appropriate, mainly to ensure a formal tone and reword sentences which sounded awkward.
   • In the lead section, on the subject of Muniz's casting and Malcolm in the Middle, the clause "which followed the show during the season" is rather ambiguous — does "follow" mean that Malcolm in the Middle used to be broadcast after the slot for The Simpsons Season 12 episodes, or something else?
   • On the subject of MoS compliance, a definite problem is the plot synopsis, which currently borders on 900 words and is too long for a 25-minute episode. To follow the guidelines at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (television)#Plot section, a summary of about half this length (ideally no more than 500 words) should be the aim. A few sentences could, I feel, just be cut altogether — for example, the mentions of Flanders' "Son of a diddly!" line and the Mueslix cereal, since this added detail does not impact on the general plot of the episode. Furthermore, I would recommend placing the subtitles in the plot section ("Homer's Day", "Lisa's Day", "Bart's Day" and "Conclusion") in bold rather than code them as subsection titles, since this unnecessarily lengthens the table of contents. Also, character names should be wikilinked within this section.
   • Since just two exist, could the deleted scenes ("Production" section) be presented as prose rather than a bulleted list?
   • The working title of the episode appears to be either "Go, Simpsons, Go" (as stated in the lead section and the "Production" section) or "Run, Simpsons, Run" (in the "Cultural references" section). Which is correct?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Is there a potential reference for the statement in the lead section that the films Go and Run Lola Run have been "critically praised"? The reception for the film is rather irrelevant to the subject of this article, and could be removed.
   • References 4 and 9 are to TV.com and IMDb, both of which are generally not considered reliable. I suggest that these could just be removed from the article, since the two sites are only used to reference production and casting credits, which are attributable to episodes themselves.

Seems good now, they were apparently removed.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. • On reviewing the sources used, I am also doubtful of the reliability of references 15, 16, 19 and 20. The reviewing system of ReviewStream.com does not appear to be professional, the SimpsonCrazy citation is a popular poll, and there are probably critical sources available that are better than About.com.
   • References 2, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 include bare URLs, and should be expanded to include a title and other information for verifiability purposes, preferably using a citation template.

I fixed one, it doesn't seem like any are bare anymore.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. • Please ensure that dates are presented in a consistent manner throughout the references: 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 use the system MONTH/DAY/YEAR, while other dates are in digits.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A range of plot, production, interpretation and reception information is included, but as previously stated, the plot section needs shortening for good balance.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No undue prominence is given to a particular commentator in the "Reception" section, although reliability of sourcing is a concern.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Appears to be in a stable condition.

5. 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):

   • The article uses Wikimedia Commons images only, so no fair-use rationales are required. There is no requirement for an infobox image. However, one of the free images currently used could be moved from the "Production" section for balance: for example, Selman is mentioned in the "Reception" section, so his image could be used to add to that part of the article.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I shall place the article on hold for one week so that adjustments can be made, mainly to condense the plot summary, add information to existing references and locate reliable replacement sources where suggested. SuperMarioMan 20:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this article really needs more work and is far from GA status. If I were the reviewer I would have failed the article. NoD'ohnuts, I suggest you withdraw the article and submit it for peer review. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thank NoD'ohnuts, Queenieacoustic and Iankap99 for acting on most of the suggestions. The referencing, in particular, is now in much better shape. However, the plot section still needs some serious reduction if it is to meet requirements — at present, it offers more of a scene-by-scene breakdown than a summary. For example, in "Bart's Day", the sentence "To get there, Bart rides his bike and Milhouse rides Lisa's bike" seems to add unneeded detail which lengthens the section. I feel confident enough to pass the article if something is done here, so I'll keep this nomination on hold for a while longer — if the plot section has been sufficiently condensed after 48 hours, in my opinion it will have reached GA standards and I'll approve it. SuperMarioMan 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Mario, I tried reducing the plot and eliminated 50-60 words. Currently it sits at around 690. That is much closer than the 900 it was previously at. I might not be able to finish it by tomorrow, so can I ask for an extension if it is not met by then?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, the article should not remain on hold for much longer. We'll see about it, but other problems have since been pointed out besides the plot. The clarification tags that Theleftorium has placed in the production section need to be addressed, since on second thoughts some statements are a bit vague. Then there is the additional sourcing problem (which affects the cultural references section) from Gran2 below. I apologise: not being a contributor to Simpsons topics, I wasn't aware of the status of The Simpsons Archive. I would address the added tags myself, but The Simpsons isn't something that I have on DVD. SuperMarioMan 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a source to cultural references. Now everything sentence is sourced, so I don't see a problem. I'll get to the other stuff. I'm not a simpsons editor either. I just saw an article on hold and decided to help out.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I got the plot down to 656 words, I'll see if i can do any better. Surely this is a complicated plot that contains three distinct plots, and warrants a slightly longer plot.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, we don't use The Simpsons Archive as a source because it is a fansite and therefore not considered reliable. I'd love to be able to use it, but we can't. Gran² 22:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed

This article appears to be close to GA standard but, given a number of problems that other users have identified, I doubt that all requirements can be met in a reasonable timeframe to justify the "on hold" status of this nomination. It is a fine start, and although I am failing this nomination for now, the article can be re-submitted quite soon if the outstanding issues are addressed. Particular thanks, once again, to Iankap99. SuperMarioMan 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)