Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2018 [1].

---

Deep Space Homer

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a second run at FA for this article. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I believe this article is ready for another go. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Notifying Aoba47 about second run as the user was the most concerned for the first run. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Kees08

Placeholder, plan to review this when I have time. Kees08 (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kees08, this nom could certainly do with further review so if you can find the time that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Are we supposed to use decorative quotes at the beginning there?
• Personal preference, but I like In the episode, NASA hoped to boost public interest in spaceflight by selecting an ordinary man, Homer Simpson, for a space mission. better than In the episode, NASA selects ordinary man Homer Simpson for a space mission, hoping to boost public interest in spaceflight.
• This doesn't flow great: It was well received, with many critics and fans calling it one of the best Simpsons episodes; a copy is available for astronauts to view at the International Space Station.
• Well, they were going to send people, but the program was cancelled before they did. Mirkin based the story on NASA's Teacher in Space Project that sent ordinary civilians into space to increase interest among the general public.
• Reword this: The writers focused more on the relationship between Homer and his family and his attempts to be a hero than on a linear plot.

Is there a place online I can legally stream this? I will review the plot section once I can view it.

The prose is not great so far, I would recommend trying to rewrite it to flow better. Things like As some writers were concerned that Aldrin would consider his line "second comes right after first" an insult, they wrote an alternative "first to take a soil sample"; Aldrin had no problem with the original line. could be written better. The paragraph does not make it clear which line they ended up using, and does not flow well in general. Kees08 (Talk) 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Fixed all of your issues stated. You can stream this on "FXNOW: Simpsons World" however you will need to enter a cable provider. They do give free trials to newcomers on the website though.

Those were examples of the issues, and not a comprehensive list. The article needs better prose and a better plot summary. It also uses a significant number of primary sources, it would be great if you could find more secondary sources. If another major rewrite is performed, ping me and I will check it again. Sorry, I know you have put a lot of work into this. Kees08 (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I reread it, and I still think the prose needs work. You can try using WP:GOCE if you need additional help. I apologize that I do not have the time for the back and forth the other reviewers have had. I wish the nomination luck and for your future success. Kees08 (Talk) 18:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: I will continue to work on it, however I am currently on vacation at the moment until thursday. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Current discussion on Prose

@Kees08: I'm probably responsible for some of the things you don't like about the prose and plot summary, as I copyedited the entire article very dramatically a few days ago. Can you give examples of why you don't like elements of those things? For example, what's wrong with the plot summary? Popcornduff (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Popcornduff: Thank you so much for the ce and the backup. I have a similar message below to Kees as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Kees08: Thank you for your insight but I literally have spent over 50 edits these past few months improving the refs and prose. With the help of others, I completely redid the refs from its previous review in February. The prose has been massively changed thanks to Aoba47 (talk · contribs) as well. Can you please give examples of where you would want to see improved prose and refs? AmericanAir88(talk) 01:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Sure. I brought up decorative quotes, but you only fixed the instance I noted and not other instances in the article. G-force should be g-forces (per the linked article). The reception talks about the episode being one of the greatest ever, while the Broadcast and reception section talks about it being rated lower than the episode the week prior, with no language used to describe the disparity. I was surprised when I was on the Simpsons site to find it rated around the same as the other episodes from the season. When the NASA employees ask Barney to be their astronaut, Homer takes credit. The next paragraph talks about Barney and Homer training, even though the preceding paragraph did not mention they were both selected, which is a little jarring. Again, just picking out a few things, without going into much depth. If a major rewrite takes place, please ping me and I will reread the article. Kees08 (Talk) 03:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Kees08: I will perform a sweep of the episode and look for issues. The writers cite the episode as being one of the greatest. It does not say one of the most viewed. Just because ratings were lower does not mean the reception was not good. Personally, I feel your stance is too soon as you have not clearly stated what is wrong with the passage such as what Aoba did. Thanks again Popcornduff (talk · contribs) for the help. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Kees08: I did a complete sweep and some copy edits but I still am not fully figuring out your reasoning for the oppose. The article reads fine and I would appreciate if you could give me specific quotes to work on similar to what Aoba47 (talk · contribs) did. Aoba47 (talk · contribs) provides countless quotes and advice for the article and still ended with a support vote. You have put an oppose vote up and have given minimal coverage on what you want fixed. Please give more insight. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Apologies for butting into this conversation. I just wanted to add my opinion as I have been pinged multiple times. Every reviewer has a different style for an FAC. I have seen users take a similar approach to Kees08, particularly during an oppose vote. He thinks the prose currently does not meet the standard for a featured article, and has voiced his opposition on that basis. I would suggest you look at the following essay (User:Mike Christie/Fix loops), specifically the following sentence (What each reviewer does is up to them, but it should be acceptable behaviour at FAC to oppose on prose and not be expected to give more than one or two examples, and not be expected to return and reread the article or provide a second round of examples) as it is applicable to this situation. I approach FACs differently as a reviewer, but I am by no means a particularly good FAC reviewer. I hope this message proves helpful to you. I am also uncertain if multiple pings will motivate Kees08 to respond. Good luck with this review, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thank you so much for your response and you are not bad at FAC. I apologize to Kees for the criticism but would like more examples from the user. I also want you Aoba to know that I am very sad of the news on your user page. I wish you the best of luck on your retirement and hope one day you return. You have been a fantastic guide and I hope you know the inspiration you gave me. Thank you and Good luck. See you around buddy. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: Indeed, and the problem of fix loops is why I generally don't get involved in FAC reviews. I would have cited a bunch of prose problems and opposed this nom, but decided it would be more productive to rewrite it myself, leave a few more suggestions, and leave it at that. Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC) I completely understand that. I think it important to always have transparency (i.e. letting the nominator know that you believe the prose issues are too great to be resolved in an FAC setting and you would not return for further comment) and courtesy (there is no reason for sly/snarky comments) in the FAC process, especially during an oppose vote. I mean a more general "you" (i.e. a general reviewer) not specifically you ><. I appreciate Mike Christie for writing the essay as I think it is helpful when thinking about an FAC review from both sides. I just hope that the FAC process serves as an encouraging area for both the nominator and the reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Media review

• File:A screenshot of a famous news scene in the Simpsons Episode "Deep Space Homer".jpg
  • In the summary page, put a space before the parenthesis 'Simpsons World(Watching the episode and taking a screenshot)'
  • Not good for the purpose in the article. Rewrite that bit to be appropriate: 'I am doing this as a editor in the "Featured article" section asked for it. '
  • Say where it actually is, and use proper grammar: 'I will use it once either in "reception" or in the infobox. It will one of two photos in the article.'
  • I think you can fill out NFCC 1 and 2
  • In the 'Non-free media data' section, several things are capitalized inappropriately
• File:David Mirkin by Gage Skidmore.jpg - doesn't match the license for his Flickr page. Not sure if it matters? Also not sure there is even a difference between the unported and generic licenses.

It matches as Flickr says to please attribute.

• File:Aldrin.jpg - caption is fine, source is fine, license is fine. Too bad there is not a free image of him around 1994 that is any good (closest I saw were 1989 and 1999, and both low quality).

All good

@Kees08: All done. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems good now. Passes media review. Kees08 (Talk) 23:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments

References are normally discouraged in the lead, unless you are citing controversial information. I believe that the information currently cited in the lead should be present and cited in the body of the article, which would make the current citations unnecessary. I would rephrase the first two sentences of the lead to something like the following (“Deep Space Homer” is an episode of the American animated sitcom The Simpsons. It is the 15th episode of the fifth season, and was first broadcast by FOX on February 24, 1994.) with the appropriate wikilinks where necessary. The reference formatting for the books is inconsistent. There are instances where you use the page number and link to a bibliography (i.e reference 19) and there are other cases where you just cite the entire book (i.e. reference 17). I would revise the article to follow the first pattern. Some of the references are incorrectly filled out for the work/publisher parameters. For instance, reference 1 should be a wikilink to Stuff.co.nz as opposed to Stuff.co, and Vulture needs to be linked in reference 12. Wikilink Adweek in reference 21. I would make check all of the references for this. Please be consistent with how dates are formatted in the references. Some do MDY and others do YMD; some have it all in numbers, while others write out the month. Any way is fine as long as it is consistent throughout the article. I am uncertain about the reliability of reference 14. Using a source written by Wikipedia contributors as a Wikipedia source does not seem appropriate to me. I am not sure why you mark reference 6 as “in Arabic” when it is in English when I click on it. What makes the following sources (therealgentlemenofleisure.com, Simpsons Archive) reliable sources? I am not saying that they are bad, but I was wondering if you could point to something that shows their reliability. Aoba47 I fixed gentlemenofleisure but the Simpsons archive has information not attainable anywhere else. The couch gag and Piece are things very visually noticeable in the episode. I am not using it to expand the article, more as a way of proof. AmericanAir88(talk) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC) I think you can paraphrase this quote "inanimate carbon rod”. Aoba47 The phrase is used in the episode very prominently. You still want me to paraphrase it? AmericanAir88(talk) 00:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I have not seen the episode in a very long time. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC) *I would revise this sentence (A version of James Taylor's 1970 single "Fire and Rain" was recorded specifically for the episode containing some altered lyrics.) to (A version of James Taylor's 1970 single "Fire and Rain", containing altered lyrics, was recorded for the episode). This sentence (He also sings You've Got a Friend.) has several issues. Who is “he” in this sentence? “You’ve Got a Friend” is missing quotation marks and a descriptive phrase in front of it. I would revise this sentence (Although the episode was directed by Carlos Baeza, the potato chip sequence was directed by David Silverman.) to avoid repetition of “was directed by”. You could shorten the following sentence (At the Power Plant, it is the ceremony for the "Worker of the Week" award and Homer, believes he will win.) to this suggestion (At the Power Plant, Homer believes that he will win the “Worker of the Week” award.) for more concise language. I am uncertain about the comma placement in this sentence (His boss Mr. Burns, instead gives the award to an "inanimate carbon rod”.). This sentence (Homer, feeling that no one respects him, turns to TV and comes across a live space shuttle launch, which he finds dull, prompting Homer to make an angry call to NASA.) is very awkwardly phrased and needs revision. I would revise this sentence (Due to the call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.) to the following (After hearing Homer’s call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.). I have two issues with this sentence (The episode was very well received with many critics and fans calling it the best episode of the Simpsons.) from the lead. I think you can avoid the repetition of the word "episode" and it should be "The Simpsons" as opposed to "the Simpsons". The prose for the “Plot” section as a whole could use some tightening and revision to avoid awkwardly constructed sentences. I will go more in-depth for future comments. A copy-edit from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be helpful. I would revise the image caption ("Deep Space Homer" is the only episode credited as being written by David Mirkin (pictured in 2012).) to (“Deep Space Homer” is the only episode that David Mirkin (pictured in 2012) wrote for The Simpsons.). Make sure that all of the references are placed in numerical order. One instance where they are not is (Several silly gags were therefore toned down to make the episode feel more realistic, including an idea that everyone at NASA was as stupid as Homer.). This sentence (Some computer animation created using an Amiga was used in the sequence in order to make the potato chip rotation as smooth as possible.) is very awkwardly worded and I would rewrite it. For instane you use “use” twice in the same sentence. You never actually say or cite in the body of the article that the episode aired on February 24, 1994. It would also be nice to include the time that it was broadcast. I believe you can revise this sentence (In his book, Planet Simpson, Chris Turner names the episode as being one of his five favorites, saying it is "second to none", despite listing "Last Exit to Springfield" as his favorite episode.) to avoid repeating “episode” and “favorite” twice. Make sure the "Bibliography" subsection is alphabetized. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC) I can tell that you have put a lot of work into this article, but I still think there is a lot of work left to be done. There are key issues with the reference formatting, and I have noticed issues of prose throughout the article. I think a thorough copy-edit would be benficial. I will provide more comments in the future if/when these are addressed, but I did not want to leave too long of a list. I hope that you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 All done. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for resolving my comments. I am going to do a more thorough review of the prose either this weekend or next week (as I am busy with off-Wikipedia obligations this week). Please ping me by the end of next week if you have not heard from me. Good job with the article, and I hope that you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 Thank you for the help and praise. Talk to you whenever you are back. Good luck with the obligations. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC) The dates are still not consistent in the references section. For instance, reference 3 uses MDY, while reference 15 uses YMD. There are some inconsistencies even within the same reference (for instance, you use MDY and DMY for reference 10). The formatting should be consistent throughout each reference so please correct this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Below are comments/suggestions that I have just for the “Plot” section. Apologies for going slowly through the article, but I just wanted to make sure that I do a thorough review. For this sentence (At the Power Plant, Homer believes that he will win the “Worker of the Week” award.), I am not sure that “Power Plant” should in caps as it is not a proper noun. Unless you are going to include the full name of the power plant, then I would believe it should be in lowercase. I would use the full name of the plant (i.e. the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant). This sentence (While watching TV, Homer comes across a live space shuttle launch, which he finds dull, prompting Homer to make an angry call to NASA.) is very awkwardly phrased. A possible revision is the following: (Homer watches a space shuttle launch on television, but finds it dull and calls NASA to complain.) I think you revise this sentence (Meanwhile, NASA, frustrated over its drop in the Nielsen ratings, decides to send an "average shmoe" into space as the solution.) to something like this (Meanwhile, NASA decides to send an “average shmore” into space in response to a drop in its Nielsen ratings.). I would revise this sentence (After hearing Homer’s call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.) to the following (NASA chiefs pick Homer after hearing his phone call.). I would try to revise the following sentence (When they arrive at Moe's Tavern in search of Homer, Homer believes he is in trouble for making the call and blames Barney for the incident.) to avoid having “Homer” repeated twice right after each other. I am confused by this sentence (However, when Barney toasts his victory with a non-alcoholic drink, he reverts to his normal alcoholic self and escapes.). How would Barney “revert to his normal alcoholic self” by drinking a non-alcoholic beverage? Aoba47 Thats the joke. Barney is a drunk and is so addicted to alcohol that he reverted to his old self even with a non-alcoholic beverage. Reworked a bit. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC) For this sentence (Homer wins by default and is selected for space flight, but he becomes nervous about going.), I think you can remove “about going” as it is clear from the context. For this sentence (He talks with his wife Marge on the phone, and she says that he ought to take advantage of the opportunity.), I would use “should” instead of “ought to”. I would revise the following sentence (He agrees, and the launch, which is also a Nielsen ratings smash, proceeds.) as it reads rather awkwardly. I am also not sure what you mean by “also”, as you have not mentioned anything else being “a Nielsen ratings smash”, in previous sentences. I would also use different wording than “smash” as it is rather informal. The word “success” may be more appropriate. I would avoid the use of the word “reveals” in this part (Homer reveals he has smuggled potato chips on board). To avoid it, I would revise these two sentences (In space, Homer reveals he has smuggled potato chips on board. He opens the bag, but due to the effects of weightlessness, they spread around and clog the instruments.) to (Homer smuggles potato chips on board the shuttle. While in space, he opens the bag, and the chips spread around and clog the instruments due to the effects of weightlessness.). I have also revised some of the language/sentence order in my suggestion. For this part, I would say “his family” instead of “the family”. For this sentence (Although Homer is a hero, the press only has eyes for the carbon rod that he used.), I would use a different word than “only has eyes for” as it sounds somewhat too informal. Again, I hope you find this helpful. I will be going through the rest of the sections either this weekend or next week. I would also like to add that the original airdate does not need a reference in the infobox as that information should be present and cited in the body of the article. The infobox should also include the runtime, and that information should also be present and cited in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: All done with your comments. The runtime cannot be added to the infobox as the Simpsons IBox template does not contain it. The main Simpsons article says that all episodes excluding specials are 22 minutes. Runtime seems pointless in the article. Thank you again. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for addressing my comments. I will get to the rest of the sections in a few days. My comment about the reference for the airdate in the infobox was not addressed though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks for this thorough review. I forgot to remove the Box ref but did mention it in the article. All good now. AmericanAir88(talk) 11:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Below are my comments and suggestions for the “Production” section: I would revise this sentence ("Deep Space Homer" was written by then-executive producer David Mirkin.) to avoid the passive tense/voice. Also, please make it clear what reference is being used to support this sentence. For this part (Mirkin had worked on the idea for the episode for a long time), could you clarify what is meant by a “long time”? It is rather vague, and it could mean anything from days, weeks, months, or years. If you do not have more exact information on this, then I believe you could cut it and have the sentence read “Mirkin based the story…). I have two comments for this part (basing the story on NASA's Teacher in Space Project to send ordinary civilians into space in order to increase interest amongst the general public.). Rather than “to send ordinary civilians”, I would say “that sent ordinary civilians” and I would cut “in order to” to just “to” to be more concise. I think you can condense and combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production as some felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.[5][6] Matt Groening felt that the idea was so big that it gave the writers "nowhere to go".[4]) to the following suggestion (The show’s writing staff felt sending Homer into space was too large an idea, and Matt Groening said that it gave the writers “nowhere to go”.). For this part (Several silly gags were therefore), I think you can remove the word “silly” and just say “gags”. For this part (the relationship between Homer and his family and Homer's attempts to be a hero.), I think it should be “his attempts to be a hero”. Unlink James Taylor and Buzz Aldrin as they were linked in the “Plot” section. I would revise this sentence (Some of the writers were concerned about Aldrin's line, "second comes right after first", feeling it was insulting to Aldrin.) to the following (Some of the writers were concerned that Aldrin would consider his line, "second comes right after first”, an insult.). I have two comments for this part (An alternative line was written: "first to take a soil sample", but Aldrin had no problem with saying the original line.). I think that the colon should be changed to a comma, and avoid repeating the word “line” so much. For this sentence (Taylor also sings Carole King's "You've Got a Friend".), specify the year in which the song was released. For this sentence (The potato chip sequence was directed by David Silverman instead of the episodes director, Carlos Baeza.), it should be “episode’s” instead of “episodes”. For this sentence (Some computer animation was created with Amiga and was used to make the potato chip rotation as smooth as possible.), I would cut down “and was used to” to just “to” for more concise language. The following are comments for the “Themes” section: I have two comments for this sentence (The episode contains numerous references to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey:). I think you can use the episode title in the beginning, and I would end the sentence with a period rather than a colon. I would make each of the following parts into their own sentence to avoid having a run-on list. I would revise the following sentence (in the space shuttle, Homer floats in zero gravity, eating potato chips (this echoes the docking scene in 2001, with the use of the music piece The Blue Danube)) to something like this for more concise language (The scene in which Homer floats in zero gravity and eats potato chips includes the musical piece The Blue Danube as a reference to the movie.). The source provided does not specify it is a reference to the docking scene. For this sentence (tchy comes out to torture Scratchy in an EVA pod much like those aboard the Discovery craft), please wikilink Itchy and Scratchy (they are redirects to The Itchy & Scratchy Show). I am a little confused by the sentence as the plot section does not reference Itchy or Scratchy. I am assuming that Homer or someone else watches an episode prior to the space launch (again, it has been many many years since I have seen this lol). Some clarification would be helpful. I would condense down this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cut replaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).) to something like this (At the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker, that rotates in slow motion, before a match cut replaces it with a cylindrical satellite. It is a parody of a similar transition between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra.) I will get to the “Reception” section sometime this weekend. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate comments for my current FAC. It is not as popular as this episode by a long shot, but I would greatly appreciate any help. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: All done with suggestions. Thank you again for this amazing help. Ill give insight on your FAC. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I am just glad that I can help in any way. Thank you. It is a short article so hopefully, it should not be too much of a bother. Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Below are my comments on the “Reception” section: Do you know the time that the episode aired? I would add that information to the first sentence of the first paragraph. Add a few sentences on the formats in which the episode is available to watch (i.e. DVD, Blu-ray, digital download, and streaming) with appropriate sources. Unlink “Nielsen ratings” as you already have it linked in a previous section. Avoid using the episode’s full title in the first two sentences of the first paragraph. Do you have information on the episode that aired directly before and directly after this to see how this episode’s ratings compared to the previous one, or if the next one had higher or lower ratings compared to this one. I would recommend making the first paragraph into its own section (as it will be expanded with information about its release) called “Broadcast history and release”. Link Fox as you have done so in the body of the article. Why is reference 5 awkwardly placed in the middle of the sentence about MSNBC as it does not seem connected? MSNBC should not be in italics. Instead of “Empire Magazine”, just say Empire and italicize it. IGN should not be in italics. Add the year in which Planet Simpson was published. There is not a clear structure to the second paragraph. It jumps around between these three points: 1) NASA loving the episode and including it on the ISS, 2) positive critical reception, and 3) the references in Tapped Out. I would make sure each paragraph has a structure/flow. Here is a good resource for copyediting reception sections (Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections). The third paragraph also jumps around from talking about 1) the guest performances to 2) the staff response. Link Planet of the Apes. The Empire Magazine sentence is missing punctuation (i.e. a period at the end). The sentences on Planet Simpson could use from revision as they are awkwardly phrased. Some of the sentences say that X thinks that “Deep Space Homer” is one of the best episodes (i.e. Empire and The Daily Telegraph), but do they explain why they thought this? Link Chris Turner. I hope that this is helpful. I also just noticed that you reference The Right Stuff in the lead, but it is not included anywhere in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: All done. Thank you so much. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. Apologies for the extreme length of the review. I support this for promotion. Great work with this, as I feel that this has improved a great deal since the last FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for all your help! Good luck on your FAC as well! AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Indopug

Comment Not sure what ref6 "Commentary, Simpsons World" refers to? The link is broken too.—indopug (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Indopug: It is referring to commentary on the episode by the writers on the website of Simpsons World. I have fixed it. Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from FunkMonk

• I'll take a look at this soon. Some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• David Silverman is overlinked.
• You could give an example of an overlord meme, unless readers know about it already, they would have no idea what it entails. You explain a bit further in an image caption, but that is not the place for unique information; it should also be stated in the article body.
• "created with Amiga" With or on an Amiga? Also, probably good to specify it is a computer.
• Groening is neither lined or introduced in the article body.
• You should spell out Homer Simpson at first mention in the intro and article body. A bit too esoteric otherwise.
• "The writers focused more upon the relationship between Homer and his family and his attempts to be a hero" Than on what?
• The astronauts (and everyone else, such as James Taylor) mentioned also need to be linked and presented as astronauts, both in intro and article body.
• "A version of James Taylor's 1970 single" You don't need to spell names out after first mention in the article body.
• "the musical piece The Blue Danube" Mention composer, as you do with other music pieces.
• "with people replacing the ant photo" This is awkwardly written. Something like "wherein the ant photo is replaced with" would sound better.

@FunkMonk: All done. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, more below. FunkMonk (talk)

• "which is lifted from Kent Brockman's line" Since the reader may not know what line you're referring to, could be quoted here.
• "The term was used by New Scientist magazine" In reference to what?
• "rule over humanity such as robots" Comma before "such as robots".
• Could you add some dates for the various commentaries and events listed under reception?
• Groening, Silverman, and possibly others, don't need their full names spelled out multiple times after first occurrence either.
• "who was also the executive producer at the time." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
• Barney should be linked in the intro.
• "instead of the episode's director, Carlos Baeza" Seems a bit strange that the main director is only mentioned as an aside?

@FunkMonk: All done with new issues. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks good to me now. I wondfer if you should explain why Brockman thinks giant ants will take over the world... FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thank you! He thinks that as when he is looking at footage inside the shuttle, a giant ant appears infront of the camera which scares him. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I wonder if it should be clarified in the article for context. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: That idea was in my head but I felt as it would not benefit the article as its implied in the plot section that ants broke loose. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, there's a bit of a leap from ants breaking lose and someone thinking they're giant, but it's your call. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I put a small mention in the plot on how it scared Kent Brockman. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff

MOS:TVPLOT: "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." As I look at the article now, it has 484 words. This isn't just a matter of enforcing policy - the description of the hatch stuff is very wordy, for example. I've drastically trimmed several Simpsons plot summaries over the years, many of them FA or GA, and it seems to be a recurring problem. Popcornduff (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've edited this down now. Popcornduff (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update 2: I've copyedited the entire article, as I didn't think the prose quality as it stood was up to FA scratch. Sorry to create extra work for people, but the editors who've reviewed it so far might want to read it again to see how it stands now. I have a few further comments:

• Should add something brief (like one sentence) to the lead to cover production (ie writers feared it was too wacky and toned it down)
• NASA loved the episode and Aldrin's cameo Loved it why? Is there a quote we can add to expand on this? It's vague.
• contains one of Groening's least favorite jokes, why doesn't Groening like it? Popcornduff (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Do we really need the long string of sources following the info about a copy being placed on the space station? Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Addressing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I have Fixed everything. I removed the "NASA loved...cameo" sentence and strengthened the ISS sentence as it is implied that they enjoyed it. I rewatched the commentaries and found Groenings reasoning. Thanks for the help on the summary! AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Sorry but this nom has been open over six weeks and we still don't have consensus to promote. OTOH we have a call for a complete copyedit and that should take place outside the FAC process, after which (and provided the usual two weeks has passed) you can renominate and ping the earlier reviewers for another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.