Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons (season 9)
The Simpsons (season 9) edit
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love The Simpsons, and I wish to make season 9 a featured topic, as season 8 is. My favorite season is actually season 8, but as it's already been done, I wanted to do my second favorite season. I used season 8's article as a template on what I should do, and I think it came out well sourced and written. I hope it passes! Xihix 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I did a complete copy-edit and rewrote some of the prose. The only thing I notice is the wikification of stand-alone years. Is there any particular reason for this? Considering the topic, it does not add context. Lara❤Love 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, than you for the copy editing! About the stand alone years, there was no reason. I was actually copying and pasting the info of the episod0e before to not have to re write the table's stuff, but never erased info that didn't change (like the year, month for the most part, color, source, etc.). Xihix 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support since it meets all criteria and features refined prose (thanks in part to Lara's c-e). Also, while this might be like a "fun fact" since I don't think it's widely know, the only Wikipedia guideline for episode lists is to follow the example of featured episode lists, so the fact that this was based on season 8 is perfect. Cliff smith 00:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I can't chase the impression that later episode summaries are longer than they could be.
- Given there are no "alternate names" in this season, that bit should be dropped from the table header.
- Links in the "directed" and "written" columns should probably not get repeated.
- Is it possible to adjust cell widths (or add a few well-placed {{nowrap}}) to reduce the number of line breaks in "episode data" rows (for lack a better name), especially the date and epsode number ones?
- Circeus 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't help it, it needs that info to be complete. Later episodes were more complex, I suppose you could say.
- I'll take that out
- You'd think, but I followed how the other lists went, and they're like that:
- I don't quite understand what you're saying, and I don't think I could, personally, fix it (not sure how to do table stuff, really).
- Xihix 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent work, Xihix. The list has a good introduction into Season 9 of the Simpsons, and the individual episode summaries and production details are nicely written and appropriately referenced. I just ask that you remove wikilinks for some words like "barn", "underwear", "jail", etc. They don't really seem necessary to include in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The prose is very very poor. Take for instance the very first line of the first plot summary - "When Barney is picked to be the designated driver for the night at Moe's Tavern and Homer allows Barney to use his car."
I find that the plot summaries for various Simpsons' seasons are very poorly written - check my review of the 6th season below. Even for already featured lists like season 8, there are plenty of glaring errors. Tommy Stardust 08:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, the prose for summaries aren't meant to be that professional. And, all I did was follow what another FL was. I mean, hey, if the prose was really a problem for them, they wouldn't be FL'd, now would they? Xihix 17:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Excellent referencing, the table looks good... My only hang up is the prose. Although Xihix and I have cleared the more obvious errors, overall the prose could be more polished. Tommy Stardust 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]