Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Homer Simpson
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [1].

Homer Simpson

edit
Nominator(s): –Scorpion0422 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC 1
previous FAC withdrawn

I've slowly been chipping away at this page for about two years and I started doing serious FA driven improvements 3 weeks ago and I believe this is the hardest I have ever worked on a page. You will notice that the article does not have an appearances section like other character articles, and the reason for this is simple. While a show like Lost has continuous storylines, The Simpsons has little or no continuity whatsoever, plus Homer has appeared in 420 episodes, so such a section would be a huge mess. Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by myself. -- Scorpion0422 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa you are way ahead of schedule. Gary King (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I resolved the disambiguation link, replaced all dead links with archives, and unlinked some dates. It should be good on those fronts now. Gary King (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Schedule"? Gran2 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conspiracy :] Gary King (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you changed all of the access dates, some of those links actually were added as long ago as 2006. -- Scorpion0422 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checklinks tool does that. I guess it does it when it finds that the URL still works. Gary King (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the Peer Review needs to be closed. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates are the last time the website was checked if they were still containing the cited information. This is an issue for wiki based site like Valve's developer documentation and some other sites. Old accessdates indicate that sources haven't been checked in a while. Admittedly the tool does get this a bit wrong, it should prompt for each link, however I've found that rather tedious. The tool will only prompt to update the links if any of the accessdates it would update are before 2008 and will only work on white/good links. — Dispenser 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow...you've done a great job, I haven't spotted anything wrong with it at all. References all look good, no bad ones...brilliant work. The structure is brilliant, though sometimes you leave out a citation and only add it several sentences after the statement it's supposed to back up.--Serviam (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - The four non-free images Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg seem to fail WP:NFCC, the fourth image conveys no more information than Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png, failing minimal usage. The variation on the last three non-free images is not significant enough to meet criteria 8, indeed the change in appearence could be put down to expression, rather than character evolution. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, gotta love the bully tactics. So if I revert to the earlier version without the 2007 image, would that make the image acceptable to you? -- Scorpion0422 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. -- Scorpion0422 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Homer has a low IQ of 55" - stating this flatly makes it sound as if it's an objective fact about a real person. Haukur (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My image comments
    • First off, I would suggest merging all the content in plain text for the images into a template, {{Non-free fair use rationale}}. It makes it easier to see what's missing from rationales and condenses the source information in as well.
    • Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png - nonfree, used for identification of the subject, low resolution. I have no issues with this. Especially if you take my recommendation below, I would clarify this is his appearance in the 2007 film (after all, production values were higher).
      • Actually, it's a normal promotional image released in 2006 as promotion for season 17. -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg - on this, I think it might actually be a better idea to revert to a blank version like this and then just crop out the last version, as it is really not that different from the infobox image. I think stating the year and appearance of the screencaps in the thumbnail would work better (also wouldn't have the blocky aliased text issue.)
    • Image:3D Homer.png - while it's an interesting shot of Homer in a different form, it seems extraneous as it is not directly supporting text to the side. I would remove it.
      • I'm not sure if you missed it or not, but the bottom paragraph of the section does discuss his 3D appearance. -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah I did, but I'm still not sure it's that major to merit an image (it was a single episode, and only for a few minutes.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:HomerStranglesBart.jpg - I have no issues with this image. It is being used to support the text, and also shows an early design of the character, as well as better pointing out an aspect of the personality described.
    • All other images free and have proper source/author/license information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2000, Homer, along with the rest of his family, were awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." should be "was" in the lead and in the "Commendations" section.
  • "Homer ... would gladly sell his soul to the devil in exchange for a single doughnut." Since the soul-selling incident was in a Treehouse of Horror episode, can it legitimately be said to be part of his personality?
  • Would it be worth adding a mention of Castellaneta's appearance as a Homer Simpson impersonator in an episode of L.A. Law? Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because that would be akin to an in pop culture section, and I really would like to avoid that. - Scorpion0422 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Oppose for now. I opposed this rather strongly last time it came up, so I felt I should give a thorough review again to assess the changes. First of all, let me say well done, this article in infinitely better than it was when I last read it. I do however have some reservations, particularly about the prose and one of the sections, which I have laid out below.

  • "The episode "That 90's Show" (season 19, 2007) contradicted much of the backstory;" - to make it clearer, perhaps use "established backstory", and maybe give a very short note on why (if you know) this was done.
    • My guess would be that they did it because they wanted to make fun of the '90s. However, there is no RS to prove this.
OK, but that is definately something to look out for.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In "When You Dish upon a Star", (season 10, 1998)" as this seems to be corroborating the previous sentence, use "For example" at the start of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • "In the season seven (1995) episode "Treehouse of Horror VI" . . ." - why is this paragraph in character development, when it has nothing to do with the character's development? Maybe put it in creation as that seems to cover animation development.
    • I would say that it belongs in development more than creation.
Why? It doesn't develop the character at all, in fact the episode it appears in is non-cannon. Can you explain your reasoning for including it in this section.
Alright, I moved it.
  • "and he usually overlooks Lisa's talents, but does everything he can to help her." - presumably this sentence should have some kind of qualification, otherwise it contradicts itself.
Still not clear. Maybe "to help her when made aware of his neglect" or similar.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "In the episode "HOMR" (season 12, 2001) Homer had a surgery to remove the crayon from his brain, boosting his IQ to 105. Although he bonded very well with Lisa, his intelligence made him less happy. As a result, he had Moe insert the crayon back into his brain, causing his intelligence to go back down" - too much discussion of a single episode which doesn't logically tell us anything not already stated. Either use it to prove a point, or cut it down to a bare minimum.
    • I'm actually not sure where that came from. Cut down.
Its still quite long for what is really a very minor point. Nevertheless, it is no longer a vital part of my oppose.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big problem here: "Cultural influence" - This is where the last FAC fell down completely and again here, whilst an improvement, there is a serious issue. There is no narative to this section, which looks a bit like a prose list - items are thrown at a reader without cohesion and unlike in the analysis or most of the production sections which preceed this I'm not sure what points are being made - Homer Simpson is a massive cultural icon, so why have these things been chosen specifically and what do they represent?
    • Basically I added anything with a source. The thing is (and I found this very surprising) that there is actually very little out there about his true influence. I've found some quotes about how great he is, but what I was really looking for was his influence on some of today's characters, and basically all I could find was a comparison of him and Peter Griffin. And it's not that I haven't looked hard enough, I've done google searches, google news searches, google books searches, newsbank searches and searched a dozen specific news sites and what you see is what I found. I can work on the flow, but I doubt I'll be able to find much more.
Much better, but one or two minor problems: "Homer Simpson is one of the most popular influential television characters" doesn't make sense, perhaps "popular and influential television characters ever"? or similar. "Homer has also had an influence in countries other than the United States." - This is redundant as the previous paragraph discussed the UK and France. "In 2008, a Spanish euro coin was found in Avilés, Spain, with the face of Homer replacing the figure of the king Juan Carlos I." - Presumably a fake Euro coin? If so, so what? (so to speak).
Done on the first few comments. As for the Homer euro coin, I clarified that it was fake, but I couldn't find any news stories that would allow me to expand on it. Do you want me to remove that part? -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general problem throughout the article, of which this is an example, "The spoken word d'oh is a trademark of 20th Century Fox. In 2006, "D'oh!" was placed in sixth position on TV Land's list of the 100 greatest television catchphrases." - The addition of "and" between these sentences would give them both more causality and clarity and would greatly smooth the reading process. The article has many such short sentences that might be better presented as part of one longer sentence.
    • I'll see what I can do, but I don't think it should be done in that case because the two sentences have no connection. -- Scorpion0422 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, this is a very nice article, an I would be neutral but for the problems in the cultural influence section. I think the text needs a closer look, as described, to help it flow better and on occasion I was left wondering why information had been included when it didn't seem to connect with anything around it but on the whole this is a very fine effort and is not far from FA quality. Any questions, just ask. Regards, --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fully revisit the text when more of the issues above are addressed. There have been a lot of improvements, but still a reluctant oppose at this stage. See my responses above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I haven't forgotten, I will come back to this after others have reviewed it (so as not to review prose that is going to change). Thought this might be interesting for you regarding pop culture items though: [2]. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It's not exclusive to Homer, it includes several other cartoon characters, including Marge Simpson and Felix the Cat. So, I would say no for now. -- Scorpion0422 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the comments by Jackyd101. Pretty much hit the nail right on the head from my point of view. As much as we all love Homer (well I do at least) and as great as this article is, it may have some work to do. I have some of my own input that may help as well:

  • The first paragraph (which is always the most vital) is a little bit confusing and hard to understand. First of all, Homer is a fictional character from the animated series "The Simpsons". The word 'fictional' is of extreme importance and should be included right away.
    • Just a small note on that first sentence, it seems that everyone has a different opinion of how it should be introduced. IPs are always changing it and the word fictional used to be included, but a reviewer suggested that having the word fictional in there was overkill. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Homer was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening while he was waiting in the lobby of James L. Brooks' office" What on earth are you trying to say here? You should keep this entire first stanza simple and better worded, there are a fair bit of dates which constantly appear, and some of the prose confuses me to stop and really think before I read it. Nothing major, just some small tongue-twisters.
    • I'm not sure what it is you think is wrong with the sentence. It seems pretty straight forward to me (and there is more detail in the next sentence). -- Scorpion0422 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Simpsons uses a floating timeline in which the characters do not age, and as such the show is assumed to be set in the current year." Can this be immediately referenced? I think it should be as it is a highly challenged statement. My knowledge of the show has become very vague over the past year, but something tells me that there have been a few instances in some episodes where the characters do get older; ie - birthdays! Doesn't Maggie have a birthday in an episode? And Mr Burns constantly changes his age. In one episode, it is revealed that his PIN number for the ATM is "the same as his age". He momentarily enters 4 digits, implying that his age is very, very old in the fictional show. However, at other times, the range of his age is expressed when he talks about his childhood or other historical years and gives specific dates. It's clear that some characters do actually age in the series, although it is not physically visible. I think this is something more appropriate to be said, and please reference it if possible. Domiy (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone's age fluxuates. Homer's been 36, 38, 39 and 40 at different points (and not in that order). Same with Marge, while Burns' age has also gone up and down. Would it be better if I changed it to "physically age"? -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of weak Support - Prose is really, really, nice, and who doesn't want to feature Homer Simspno on the main page? lolz! But, Jack has some pretty valid nitpicks. —Sunday | Speak 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments (because I love the series - note: didn't read the above).
    • I found the opening sentence a bit bland for such an iconic topic. Has that sentence been agreed upon
      • Any suggestions?
        • The change you made looks much better.
    • I also noticed there are a lot of instances of passive voice. While that is alright to use occassionally, in formal writing it should not be used too often.
    • The first four sentences of the first paragraph are unsourced. I haven't checked much elsewhere in the article, but we all know that a reliable source is needed to prove every statement in the article. The first citation in that section is to the episode Mother Simpson, which, IIRC, does not mention Homer being raised on the farm.
      • Done.
    • Is there a reason the Character development section is so long? It would be nice seeing it split into two.
      • Done.
    • The end of the first paragraph of Personality is unsourced.
      • Done.
    • Do'h! Err, I don't think that section needs to be so long. There is a sub-article, after all, which should contain more of the info.
      • I've shortened the section.
  • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! -- Scorpion0422 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two more things after a quick look. First, when describing the character in the lede, you say, "[Homer] is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, thoughtless and lazy." However, some of that can be argued against, particularly "thoughtless". I can think of several episodes where in the end Homer is hardly thoughtless. Perhaps even his change in character could be mentioned in the lede, since, as a fan of the show, that change has been important. I have a small quibble with "Homer is one of the main characters on The Simpsons, appearing in every episode to date." First, that should be sourced, and second, is that even true? Treehouse of Horror V has one segment that excludes Homer entirely, so would that be an exception? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mentions of thoughtless and "appearing in every episode to date" because although it is true, I can't find a source for it. -- Scorpion0422 17:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Moni3

  • Don't tell anyone I reviewed a pop culture article. But I love Homer.
    • Well I appreciate the review.
  • I'd quote and cite the significant statement by the Sunday Times in the lead about Homer being the "greatest comedic creation of modern time". That's quite a whopper statement.
    • The reason a quote isn't used is because their specific statement is "the greatest comic creation of our time", so we'd have to alter the quote anyway.
      • I think it's worth it to alter the sentence to make way for the quote.--Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I'll do it. Thanks for the support, by the way. -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several instances where the writing in the article could flow better and read a bit snappier. We are, after all, discussing an extraordinarily influential fictional character. I think the same standard of writing should apply to Homer as it would to Cyrano de Bergerac. I hope you don't mind that I copy edited it a bit. And oops for the typo.
  • Can you give examples of Jerkass Homer as opposed to a kinder, gentler Homer? The character development section can be expanded a bit with a few examples: In early seasons, Homer appeared concerned that his family was going to make him look bad. Why?
    • I know the perfect quote for this, and I added it.
  • Whoever stated Homer is a borderline alcoholic - that should be in quotations with a citation. Because that dude is all alcoholic in my opinion.
    • Done.
  • "The Simpsons's"? Ack! Must get a grammarian!! Use the bat phone.
    • It has been fixed.
  • What are Homer's feelings for Grandpa Simpson?
    • Fixed.
  • Castellaneta's normal speaking voice has no similarity to Homer's says who?
    • Everyone.
      • I'm not everyone. As the actors get older I can hear their normal speaking voices. It was a curt way to ask for someone to quantify that statement: a poll or survey, "According to ..." or something. Sorry for being curt. --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Castellaneta really does sound nothing like Homer (his normal speaking voice is closest to the Blue Haired Lawyer) but I know what you're saying. I'll try and find a quote from a writer/producer that I can add. -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Homer Book, about Homer's personality and attributes, has been published and is commercially available. How about a review or something about this book. Otherwise, it just thuds.
    • Done.
  • I would love to support the article, and feel it has only a little ways to go to get there. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see you reverted my edit to Role in the Simpsons. That is your prerogative, of course, but my copy edit unified the concepts of the section. I noticed that many of the sections addressed issues over and over, scattering the ideas and making the reading a bit tedious. I hope you'll consider the restructuring or be able to explain why age, role, age, and occupations is a logical flow. Even Homer deserves brilliant compelling prose. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I moved the bit about the floating timeline is because it refers to everything in the section, not just the age. It's sort of a disclaimer. -- Scorpion0422 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support; copyedited this one not long ago, and it's looking even better now. Well done. Giggy (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the series focus primarily on Bart for the first couple of years, but then Bart was (relatively) de-emphasized to make Homer the Main Guy? That wold seem to be important... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I would say that that is an accurate statement. However, I have not been able to find a reference for it, and to say so without a ref is POV. And, there have been edit wars in the past over it. -- Scorpion0422 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be POV, it would be WP:OR. :-) I'll look tomorrow. Good night. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I say POV is because there have been edit wars in the past where people have said Homer is not the sole main character, he's one of five and to say he is the leading character is inappropriate. Personally, I agree with you, but I'm just trying to avoid future edit wars. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homer_Simpson/archive3&oldid=1146623049"