Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sideshow Bob

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 promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

---

Sideshow Bob

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

My first FA of 2009 is one I've been meaning to do for a while but just recently got around to it. I'll finish this nom with some wisdom from Bob himself:

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!" - Sideshow Bob, 1992

Anyway, as always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.moviesonline.ca/
    • It's a movie news site and they do check their sources. Unfortunately, I can't find any other online articles from better sources, but I have found several on NewsBank. However, I think NewsBank should only be used as a last resort. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think what Ealdgyth is looking for is some kind of proof that the site is to be considered reliable beyond an editor statement that "It's a movie news site and they do check their sources." Something like the site's being considered reliable by a more obviously reliable source. Luckily for MoviesOnline, it has been cited by publications such as New York Magazine (here), and MSNBC (here). Maybe that'll be enough. If it isn't, then check the Google News Archive for further instances. Steve ^{T • C} 01:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd give it a "on the fence" statement for those. (Thanks, Steve, btw!) Why are sources on NewsBank to be used only on a last resort? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Because not everyone has access to them. I prefer to use sources that everyone can immediately see. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm inclined to think it's unreliable, but I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Then add both refs like<ref>(i) [insert reliable source]<br>(ii) [insert accessible source] Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note the link checker tool is showing the billboard link as dead, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, replaced with a NewsBank Hamilton Spectator ref. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Please check citations for consistency in usage of p or pp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It uses p in cases where there is just one page, and pp for multiple. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I think it was that some pg no's had dots after them, some others didn't. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cecil and Bob.png - I am on the fence about this fair use image. There is critical commentary in the article comparing the two characters, but I am not sure that we need to show Cecil. Apparently, Cecil is meant to look "related" to Bob. On the one hand, I think showing the two characters is helpful, because I wouldn't have guessed they were supposed to look alike. On the other hand, this article is about Bob, and I wonder how necessary this image of Cecil really is. My concerns here fall under WP:NFCC #8. I would appreciate feedback from other reviewers on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this problem can be solved by adding to the intro a statement on the lines: "only one relative of Bob has been introduced on the show, Cecil". This way having a section and a image with him would make it more ok. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple members of the Sideshow family have been introduced on the show, including both of his parents, a wife and a child. Otto4711 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The intro's a little long, but it's all substance. Good work. ^Tezkag₇₂ 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please comment on the fair use image per my request above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it should be left in, but I see how it might not be justified. See what others say. ^Tezkag₇₂ 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So have you reached a decision on the image? I can remove it if you like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent article, though my comment on the PR was not addressed. There are multiple cases of repetition in the article. One is how Bob is stalled by reciting the HMS Pinafore and is captured, which is in both the Appearances and Analysis sections. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It can't really be avoided though. It's a major plot point, so it should be mentioned in appearances but it's also cited as an example in the book we use. You have to assume that the reader is not familiar with The Simpsons (or that they bothered to read the entire article), so in both cases a short description is provided. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not at all close to 1a. Update: Scartol's copyedit has greatly improved the prose.
• From the lead:
  • "He began as a sidekick " Began is quite vague here...began as a character (out of universe, and began is still too unspecific) or began his career (in universe)?
  • "involve Bob/him [verb]-ing" is quite ungainly, especially in two sentences in a row.
    • Do you have any suggestions?
  • "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic"," Citation for quotation? Passive perfect tense is weak.
    • Per WP:LEAD, citations are not needed in the lead if there is a citation later in the article. And the complete version of that quote is used (and cited) later.
      • Per WP:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright then. Done.
  • "has since been praised for his portrayals" Yet more passive perfect. What's the "since" doing here?
    • Removed.
  • "Several parallels have been drawn in the show" And more. In fact, the weak perfect tense is used throughout the lead.
    • So what is wrong with the sentence?
      • Nothing wrong grammatically; I'm pointing out that it, plus numerous other sentences, use the perfect perfect progressive. They often beg the question, "by whom?" If this can be answered, then a recast into an active voice often leads to stronger prose. BuddingJournalist 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "the premise of the Coyote chasing the Road Runner by having Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life." These two ideas, connected by the "by", don't seem to relate to each other.
    • They do too. Have you ever seen the Coyote and Road Runner cartoons?
      • I have, but how does "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" connect with this idea? BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, you have to remember that it's just the lead and the idea is exanded upon in the development section. But the Coyote is a self-proclaimed genius who continually chases this stupid bird for whatever reason and always loses. This premise is similar to Bob & Bart. Also, that idea was mentioned by a producer in one of the DVD commentaries. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • One of the tough parts of the lead is balancing clarity with succinctness. "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" is vague and does not seem to connect to the previous idea of "chasing". Draw the parallel explicitly. BuddingJournalist 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Okay.
              • I'm still not seeing the connection of "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" with Coyote/Road Runner (note that this exact phrase is used later as well). The recurring theme of the cartoons is that the coyote repeatedly tries and fails to kill the road runner, which seems to be the correct parallel, not the vague "unexpectedly inserting himself", no? BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "a role as the main antagonist in The Simpsons Ride and several of Grammer's musical..." Broken list: either "and a role...The Simpsons Ride, and several" or recast "and several of Grammer's..." so that parallelism is kept through the list.
    • I split it into two sentences.
  • Looking at some sentences at random below the lead:
  • "decided to have Bob return to get revenge" This is just begging for a recast.
    • Why?
      • There are much stronger words to use than those two here. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "and the directors think they are always crazy and fun for them to animate" Encyclopedic prose, please.
    • To be fair, "crazy and fun" is in quotations; so it must come from the directors themselves. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The quotations weren't in there before. I have since changed it to a different quote. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It wasn't in quotations when I made the above comment. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The writers believe that Grammer has a great voice and try to create something for him to sing each time he appears." Yet more simplistic prose.
    • And?
      • And what? BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I've re-written it, is it better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, at least "something" has been eliminated. Great is not the most encyclopedic adjective. Now there's nothing objectively wrong with "The writers believe that Grammer has a great singing voice and try to write a song for him every time Bob appears", but it is rather simplistic, wordy, and dry. "Grammer's singing talent inspires the writers..." is just one example of a pithier way of expressing this idea. BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "His intelligence can sometimes be a plus such as in "Cape Feare". A Parole Board asks Bob why he has a tattoo that said "Die, Bart, Die" and he replies that it is German for "The, Bart, The"." Huh? Is the second sentence supposed to serve as an example of why this is a "plus" (note also the un-encyclopedic and vague use of "plus")? If so, I'm not seeing the connection.
    • I added a bit more detail. Better?
      • Ah, now it makes a bit more sense, but what exactly are they impressed about? The sentence seems to imply that the important information is that they believe him. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd have to add a bit more detail (generally I try to keep plot details as brief as possible), but I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not seeing the necessity for more detail; I'm just wondering whether "impressed" should be replaced by "believes him" or something similar. But then again, I don't know the episode. BuddingJournalist 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• The article seems far from 1a standard and needs a significant copy-edit. Whoever decides to undertake the copy-edit will probably need access to the sources to rewrite much of the rather simplistic language and sentence structure that is used throughout the article. BuddingJournalist 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to keep you up to date, I am still looking for a copyeditor (the user I would normally go to is busy), do you know any? As well, which of your concerns listed above are still not fully addressed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • • As for copyeditors, maybe User:Cirt? I struck the ones I believe have been addressed, although I may have overlooked some things. But these were just examples; there are many areas for improvement in the prose throughout the article.
        • Take this paragraph, for example: "Cecil returned in "Funeral for a Fiend" in season 19, along with their previously unseen father, Dr. Robert Terwilliger, who was played by John Mahoney. Mahoney had also played Martin Crane, the father of Grammer's and Pierce's characters in Frasier. However, the dynamic of the characters was changed: [While] in Frasier, Mahoney played the "down-to-earth, average guy" to Grammer's and Hyde Pierce's "uppity snobs"[,]; but Robert Terwilliger was portrayed as being just as highbrow as Bob. Bob also has a wife named Francesca (voiced by Maria Grazia Cucinotta) and a son named Gino, both of whom were introduced in the season 17 episode "The Italian Bob" and returned for "Funeral for a Fiend"."
          • Easily spotted errors such as "their", "Grammer...characters"/"Grammer..."uppity snobs"", and using a semicolon incorrectly should really be resolved in a copyedit/proofread before FAC.
          • Redundancies such as "who was", "also", and "being" can be eliminated in favor of crisper prose.
          • Since the contrast of the dynamics is explicitly laid out, the "However, the dynamic of the characters was changed" can be safely eliminated for a simpler comparison.
          • "played" gets a bit repetitive.
          • "returned" clashes with "along with...previously unseen". You'll need to find a way to recast this sentence.
          • The last "also" is a weak way of transitioning to Bob's wife and son. It really ought to be eliminated, but doing so makes the break in discussion more jarring. Is there a better place within the Family section for this sentence—perhaps at the very beginning? BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • BuddingJournalist, could you comment on the fair use issue I raised above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I'm no image expert. I hold the same view you do; I think it'd be fine in an article on Cecil, but am unsure of its utility in this article. BuddingJournalist 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Another Update Cirt, has started doing a copyedit and has done the lead. However, this will likely be archived tomorrow so I'll probably have to give it another try. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Another fine Simpsons article that is strong on substance and sources. Has no strong considerable problems and appears to be complete. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

• Could you please comment on the fair use issue I raised above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think above you made reference to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The "topic" in question here is "Bob's family". Given that, I think having the picture showing the 2 characters together does significantly increase my understanding of how they are drawn to resemble each other as family would be, and not having the picture would be detrimental to my understanding of that. In my opinion it qualifies as fair use. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm I would stay away from statements like "Sideshow Bob has become a popular character from the series". Without a reference it is POV-pushing. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is referenced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Wouldn't it be useful to end the article with a section that lists the ten episodes he appears in? EnemyOfTheState_|talk 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Like this? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My bad, though a proper section might still not be the worst of ideas. This template doesn't exactly catch your eye (as I unintentionally demonstrated). EnemyOfTheState_|talk 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • A section might not be a bad idea, but there isn't one because of precedent. In the past, every character had a "major episodes" section. For Sideshow Bob, this isn't a problem, but with the majority of the rest of the characters it was because it can be very subjective. We finally decided to get rid of the sections and I would prefer not to bring any of them back. I can make the template non-collapsed so it will be more noticeable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It was confusing to have the first navbox collapsed and the second not, so I made the second navbox autocollapse. It should be easier to spot the first one now. Gary King (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this, felt it was very close to FA standards at the time, and believe that the edits since have only improved it. I think the image of the brothers is acceptable as a fair use image. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment WHile I believe the Bob and Cecil image meets WP:NFCC, I am also OK with its removal. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose—style and prose concerns, crit. 1–3. In several places the wording is clunky and choppy, i.e., "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic";[1] Frasier Crane is Grammer's character on the sitcoms Cheers and Frasier." Then there's the fact that the appearances section is written in past tense, in contradiction to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I'm not convinced that File:SideshowBobsfirstappearance.png significantly increases reader understanding, as required by WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • About the appearances section, up until recently it WAS written in present tense but it was changed. [2] I have since taken it back to present. Why aren't you convinced about SideshowBobsfirstappearance.png? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, before I even edited the article, half of the Appearances section was already in past tense. I just followed whatever tense it was using the most while copyediting it ;) Gary King (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, we're none of us perfect. I think I've caught a lot of the past tense. However, the section starts off with past tense because it recounts things that happened in the past in the show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to pass on the image as the other one has been removed. However there should be some care in terms of the free images added; in some places they are aligned left in violation of MoS rules regarding images, and clutter up the text, breaking up section headers and adding whitespace; add breaks if you're going to have so many. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried shifting the images around and I uploaded cropped versions of the Grammer and Hyde Pierce image. Is it better now? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the images — I felt they helped break up walls of copy. What MOS violation are you referring to? The only one I can imagine is not left-aligning images just below level-three headers, which I always carefully avoid. In any case, it looks like Scorpion has fixed the clutter problem. Scartol • Tok 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, criterion 3. The Cecil and Bob image is a deal-breaker at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? I've got three different image reviewers telling me three different things. Awadewit says she isn't sure, David Fuchs apparantly doesn't have any objections and you find it opposeable over. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a subjective matter. I don't believe it lends anything to understanding the material, and we are trying to build a free encyclopedia which means we must keep non-free content to a bare minimum. I don't even care for the image in the infobox but I'm afraid one must be tolerated. --Laser brain (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Is there anything I can do (ie. Fixing the rationale or using a different image) to change your opinion, or will you only change your mind with the removal of the image? For what it's worth, I asked some users on IRC and they thought the image was okay. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the only way the image would be acceptable is if it was accompanied by sourced, critical commentary that is essential to understanding the character. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, personally I think it does already do that, but it's really not worth having this fail over, so I removed it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I have stricken my image comment above, but upon examination of the prose, this is far from meeting 1a. It needs a thorough copyedit. I agree with BuddingJournalist's assessment that the prose is very simplistic, reading more like a episode guide than an encyclopedia article. Random samples just from the first section:
  • Confusing mixture of past and present tense when talking about Bob's history. I thought you had a system going, but it breaks down quickly.
    • There is a system going. Events that appear in the show are in present tense, events that were not depicted in the show are in past tense.
      • I understand that. I'm saying you aren't following the system. --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "This was part of a scheme to gain access to ..." Avoid using "this" to refer to a previous concept without restating.
  • "After this escapade, Bob is genuinely redeemed ..." We have to wait a tortuously long time before reading how he was redeemed.
    • What? That was part of the plot of the episode, Bob was genuinely changed and thus he was released.
  • The whole section, actually, is not a compelling read. The long list of "Bob is released from prison. Bob does something. Bob is returned from prison." is a labor to read through. Sorry, but this has quite a way to go.
    • Have you ever tried condensing the plots of 10 full episodes into a three paragraph section? It's immensely to explain the same basic premise over and over again in such little space without sounding repetitive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure it's difficult but that's part of the challenge of meeting criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going to do as thorough a copyedit as I can, starting today. Hopefully I can help finesse the prose a bit. Scartol • Tok 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've finished my copyedit. I hope it helps. Scartol • Tok 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've stricken my opposition above. It's looking much better. --Laser brain (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything that can be done to get you to support? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Looking much better.
  • Still not convinced by "having Bob unexpectedly insert himself into Bart's life". At the least the first time this is used, there is an "and attempt to kill him." The recurring motif of the the Coyote/Road Runner cartoons is that the Coyote repeatedly tries to kill the Road Runner in elaborate ways, no? Therefore, "by having Bob repeatedly attempt to kill Bart" or something similar makes much more sense to me.
  • Okay, I can go for that. Done.
    • Forgot to mention: this is actually what happens in the episode though, right (that he repeatedly attempts to kill him)? I've never seen it; I was just extrapolating from the comparison. BuddingJournalist 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't think of that. Usually the episodes revolve around one plan to kill Bart, rather than numerous failed attempts, so the previous wording was more accurate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I guess I'm still left wondering about the comparison then. I can understand how the comparison can be made across multiple episodes, since he repeatedly fails at killing Bart, but the current wording suggests something specific about that one episode that recalls the Coyote/Road Runner episodes. BuddingJournalist 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Cecil returned in "Funeral for a Fiend" during season 19, along with the brothers' previously unseen father, Dr. Robert Terwilliger, played by John Mahoney." "Returned" clashes with "along with...previously unseen".
    • Fixed (I think).
      • Not quite. What I mean is that the second clause basically clashes with the verb choice of "return". Since Dr. Robert Terwillinger is "previously unseen", then his appearance can't be a "return". See my tweak. BuddingJournalist 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Believing that "nobody who speaks German could be an evil man", they release him" Quotation needs citation. BuddingJournalist 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it was covered by the book cite, but I did add a cite for the specific episode as well. Thanks again for your input. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support — I gave the article a quick read-through and found just two items, which I fixed myself. Good work by everyone who contributed to the article. I only wish that every Wikiproject had as dedicated and organized a crew as Wikiproject Simpsons. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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