Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Simpson/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) diff.[reply]

Lisa Simpson edit

Lisa Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 02:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination for the page, which last failed two weeks ago. I actually felt that I had addressed the opposition to the article, but one opposer did not return to the page, and the other stopped coming back after a few exchanges (in both cases, I asked on their talk pages if their concerns were addressed). Anywaym I feel that the page has improved from where it was a month ago, with copyediting provided by the great Scartol. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 02:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 02:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

currently failing criteria 3 File:Lisasmall2.gif & File:Lisa_Simpson.png should be combined to minimise use of non free content per wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the gif should be moved to the infobox? That would be rather unusual considering every other Simpsons character page uses a non-animated full body shot of the character. Both images have very specific purposes: one is to show the appearance of the character, the other aids the text in explaining the design of the character. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 02:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to tell what the character looks like from the design drawing? If so, the first image is redundant, and thus fails wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The design drawing shows the character in an unusual pose, and just half of her body. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 11:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an editorial decision how to rectify this problem, however as it stands it fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is no problem. Considering that we're talking about an animated character, images that show her design are extremely important, so why is such a horrible thing to have three (gasp!) non-free images? -- Scorpion0422 01:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have purpose Fasach Nua (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but another purpose is to provide the best information possible, and all three images aid the article in conveying that information. -- Scorpion0422 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Fasach Nua to review File:Lisasmall2.gif directly. The file has illustrative animation, and for some reason, the animation does not take place in the article body. There is discussion about the matter, and it seems to be a development issue. Once it is resolved, we'd see the animation take place in the article body. Are you still opposing the animation? Just wanting to make sure you're not just looking at the non-animated GIF. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward Just a few comments from me. Overall the article looks pretty good (image issue aside).

  • "He writes, "In so many cases Lisa is presented not simply as a prodigy but as preternaturally wise, the fondness for Itchy and Scratchy and Corey seem to be highlighted, taking on greater significance." - I know this is a quote, but this sentence is a bit confusing. Because she is wise, a violent cartoon show is therefore highlighted? Perhaps I am missing something. I'd suggest paraphrasing him to be more clear about just what he means.
    • I felt that the second sentence in the quote made it a bit clear: "Lisa is portrayed as the avatar of logic and wisdom, but then she also worships Corey so she's 'no better'", but I suppose I could try to make it a bit better. Basically, it means that Lisa enjoying children's toys and programs is important to her character, because she is portrayed as being very wise with a "better than thou" attitude. But, her participation in normal childhood activities makes her more normal. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, environmentalist website The Daily Green honored Lisa's role in The Simpsons Movie with one of its inaugural "Heart of Green" awards, which "recognize those who have helped green go mainstream."" - needs a citation
    • The citation is the next sentence over. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wrote "young Lisa Simpson has inspired a generation to wear their hearts on their sleeves and get educated, and involved, about global issues, from justice to feminism and the environment."", maybe first word should be "they"?
  • I notice some of the references are actually linking back to Wikipedia articles on The Simpson episodes.. The article is not actually using the content of those Wikipedia articles as sources, right?
    • No, it's using the episodes themselves as sources, links to the articles about those episodes were provided so users can quickly look them up.
  • Ref #15 needs an access date -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ortved, John (2009). The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History. Greystone Books. pp. 248–250. ISBN 978-1-55365-503-9." - why are there page numbers on this reference? They are not the same numbers listed in the citations.
    • That was my mistake, I forgot to delete the page numbers. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References check out
  • Alt text present
  • Prose is great

Neutral, this is really a great article, and the only thing holding it back, in my opinion, is the image issue. The article can only utilize a single image of Lisa by my understanding of WP:FAIRUSE. Under Fair Use Policy 3(a), it reads "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not [to be] used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." One full length image of Lisa can adequately convey her appearance. On that point I have to agree with the other opposers. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image in "Design" is different from the image in the infobox. It is animated, but there is a development issue preventing the animation from playing in the article body. Go to the file directly: File:Lisasmall2.gif. Do you still oppose even with this illustrative animation? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't understand where the problem is. Every image in the article has its purpose. I think the article meets the FA criteria. --Morten Haan (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do still oppose. Even though they are a different medium (sort of) they are still of the same subject. The gif provides a superior demonstration of the subject, but they are each essentially demonstrating the same thing. Three non-free images showing basically the same thing is not minimal usage. From any one of those images, I can determine her appearance and understand what the text is talking about when speaking of her unusual head features, colour, etc. I don't need all three of them to understand that. Therefore, it is not using the minimal amount of non-free content. Maybe I am mistaken, but is there an important thing that the article would loose if it only displayed the best of those three images? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the the other Simpson articles, which are featured, I do see your point now. I changing to neutral on this. I still think it is bordering on a Fair Use issue, but will not oppose over it. Otherwise I do find the article to great. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't look at any of the above, so pardon if any of this has been pointed out.
    • After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family began their own series on Fox, which debuted on December 17, 1989.
      • That could be written better, since it suggests the family is real. It's just a non-universe sort of thing.
    • I think the "Role in the Simpsons" section is a bit short. The second paragraph of the lede (top of the article) and the fourth paragraph of "Role in the Simpsons" cover similar content, and yet the "role" section isn't any longer. Could you pad that section out more?
    • In the "Design" section, should it be noted that she changed her hair in some episodes? (The President Wore Pearls comes to mind). It's your decision, just something that popped out.
    • For the "Voice" section, it says that Smith read two lines for Bart and was then told she done. Did she really get the job for Lisa based on those two lines? Or, was she called back?
    • Lisa plays the baritone saxophone, and many episodes include that as a plot device.
      • As a fan of the show, that's not really true. The saxophone is used occasionally at best as a plot devise.
    • Under reception, you only mention the positive reception, which is more broadly about the show. I know many people who name Lisa as their least-favorite character. Surely there is some encyclopediac merit to include the opposing viewpoint. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.
    • Non-free images are improperly handled, with little in the way of specific rationales to justify their inclusion (they appear to have cut-and-paste requirements, and some fields are improperly used).
    • In many cases primary sources are being used improperly in synthesis. Examples: "Her brightness manifests itself in various ways." is followed by current citations 56, 57, and 58, all primary sources. "Although she is intellectually gifted, Lisa experiences typical childhood issues, sometimes requiring adult intervention"→primary sources. Most of the opening subsection is based entirely on primary sources. These are going beyond simple statements and into POV interpretation; frankly, if it can't be sourced to a reliable source, it probably shouldn't be in the article.
      • First of all, ref 58 is Planet Simpson, a reliable third party book. 56 covers "Lisa is said to have an IQ of 156", and why does that need a third party source? I'm sure the episode itself can be trusted for something like that. Same with 57, which sources "in "They Saved Lisa's Brain" (season ten, 1999) she becomes a member of the Springfield chapter of Mensa". As for the adult intervention statement, it's actually sourced to the Planet Simpson citation right after the episode one. I tend to try to avoid using citations on every sentence, and sometimes I'll use one for several. In this case, the episode statement was stuck in the middle, and I forgot to fix the sourcing. Also, could you please give some examples of the "POV interpretation" you see? -- Scorpion0422 03:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (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/Lisa_Simpson/archive3&oldid=1078802529"