Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa the Vegetarian/archive1
- 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 Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [1].
Lisa the Vegetarian
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I've been working on it since December 2008 and I think it meets the FA criteria. I know it's a bit short (this is the only information available), but it's comprehensive. Theleftorium 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did a copyedit for this article and found it to be well-written (there wasn't much to edit) and thoroughly researched. A fine piece of work by the editors involved. Scartol • Tok 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question why doesn't this episode have any picture from the episode itself (unlike all the other Simpsons episodes)? 18.60.2.34 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's non-free content criteria is very strict. I don't think there's any image from the episode that significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (see "8. Significance"). Theleftorium 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is mention at one point in the article about how Paul & Linda are drawn. Maybe include something like this? Scartol • Tok 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there used to be an image of them in the article before. I'm not sure that passes the NFCC, though.. Theleftorium 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this image, you can see the colors of their eyes (well, Linda's, at least.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's actually the exact image that used to be in the article. Would you say it meets the NFCC? Theleftorium 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that for non-free images, significant critical commentaries are needed to qualify their inclusion; for the frames suggested above, the article should have certain comments on how the McCartneys were drawn or what sort of reactions were elicited by their caricatures, and would be helped with illustrations instead of words to qualify for fair-use. "The designs for Paul and Linda McCartney are unusual for The Simpsons in that the characters have brown and blue irises, respectively." does not seem substantial enough for this. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's actually the exact image that used to be in the article. Would you say it meets the NFCC? Theleftorium 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is mention at one point in the article about how Paul & Linda are drawn. Maybe include something like this? Scartol • Tok 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor (throughout); it's no disaster, though. Here are random examples.
- "October 9 to October 15, 1995" -> "October 9–15, 1995"—See MOSNUM?
- Why is "lighter fluid" linked? "Theme song" is a debatable link. Is it an obscure item? "Movie soundtrack" is definitely a common term and should not be linked here.
- Here, you could link accurately rather than distorting the info in the pipe: "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career." —> "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career.
- "But rather than simply punctuating the episode with an iconic image of the porker soaring through the air, the writers actually develop a story into which the joke fits." Consider "However,..." at the start of a sentence. Remove "actually". Slightly awkward syntax at the end. Tony (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one thing that had bothered me while I was reading the article weeks ago, but for some reason, I never pursued the issue. I'm talking about this part:
"In one scene of the episode, Homer fills his grill with two bottles of lighter fluid, causing viewers to anticipate an explosion when Homer throws a match on it. When he does release the match, however, it barely ignites. A similar joke appeared in an older episode of The Simpsons, "Treehouse of Horror", and Mirkin enjoyed it enough to reuse it."
An important thing to note is that there is an explosion after Homer sprays the lighter fluid in the earlier episode. I think we need to add or reword something in the passage above, because it's misleading to say that Mirkin "reused" the scene. Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some changes. Is it better now? (if not, please excuse my bad English) :-) Theleftorium 10:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A little bit. I made a few changes of my own. I'm still not 100% satisfied, but I'll think about it a little more. Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess it's good enough now. Of course, if anyone has suggestions for improvement, they're welcome to comment. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; looks ready; in near-perfect shape. Good work. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Another excellent episode article from WP:DOH. But, however, I think a promotional image for the episode would follow the Fairuse guidelines as it better illustrates the episode in questions. As well, the Paul and Linda image might be best on the left to give it a more organized look, as all of the images on one direction makes it looked clumped, IMO. Anyways, great work. The Flash {talk} 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: the three images are appropriately licensed; note that the Flickr source for File:Davidmirkin.jpg has a non-commercial license, but User:EPO says it was CC-BY-2.0 without restrictions on 5 August 2007. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New comments I looked at the article again, and I think the critical reviews section might benefit from a trimming. It's a bit difficult to read through, and some of the quotes are more insightful than others. Is there anything that you think we could get rid of? For starters, we should probably drop the Daily Bruin reference, since that is a college newspaper. I'd also remove the Martyn & Wood quote, which is pretty dull. Zagalejo^^^ 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed it down quite a bit now (removed around 1,000 bytes). Please take a look again. Theleftorium 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a little bit better. It's still a bit tough to read through, because the text rapidly jumps from one reviewer's comment to another. There's no real paragraph development, just groups of loosely related blurbs. However, I don't know if there's much more we could do with that material. If I had my way, I'd present the reviewers' comments as bullet points, rather than forcing them into paragraphs, but I realize that goes against the consensus for writing fiction articles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? Theleftorium 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd prefer that to what's in the article now. Topic sentences are good. :) There are still a few rough patches, but that's definitely an improvement. Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done. :) Theleftorium 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could split up the section into four focused paragraphs: Simpsons staff reaction, humor, character development, McCartneys (in that order). I'd move the MSNBC blurb into the paragraph that focuses on humor, and look for another quote from the DVD commentary to flesh out the staff reaction paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done. :) Theleftorium 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd prefer that to what's in the article now. Topic sentences are good. :) There are still a few rough patches, but that's definitely an improvement. Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? Theleftorium 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a little bit better. It's still a bit tough to read through, because the text rapidly jumps from one reviewer's comment to another. There's no real paragraph development, just groups of loosely related blurbs. However, I don't know if there's much more we could do with that material. If I had my way, I'd present the reviewers' comments as bullet points, rather than forcing them into paragraphs, but I realize that goes against the consensus for writing fiction articles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Wiki - "The Simpson family rushes in as outlines, and gets filled in by robotic paint guns"
- 1. Source - "The Simpsons rush in as outlines - and get filled in by robotic paint guns."
- Reworded.
- 2. The source cannot verify this statement "was the first full-length episode" as it only mentions him as a writer and nothing else.
- That is verified by ref 3, do you want me to remove ref 2?
- 3. The source cannot verify this statement as it merely mentions her appearing in the episode - "Mirkin also recruited McCartney's wife Linda to appear in the episode.".
- I think this has been fixed, but please check again.
- 4. The source cannot be used to verify this statement, especially when it only mentions the lentil soup recipe in reference to the end credits: "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career. For instance, McCartney tells Lisa that playing his 1970 song "Maybe I'm Amazed" backwards will reveal a secret recipe for lentil soup."
- Added ref from commentary, which discusses the references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career.
- 5. Wiki - "One of the backwards snippets says, "Oh, and by the way, I'm alive," a reference to the Paul is dead theory."
- 5. Source does not specify this - "The reference to hidden messages in reversed Beatles songs refers to the (mistaken) belief that 'Paul Is Dead' was spoken backwards on the Sergeant Pepper album."
- That was verified by ref 5, but I moved them around to make it more clear.
- 6. Wiki - 'and Linda says that she enjoys visiting "Apu's garden in the shade", alluding to a line in the Beatles' 1969 song "Octopus's Garden"'
- 6. Source does not specify this - "Linda McCartney quotes, appropriately, a line from the Beatles' song Octopus's Garden."
- Done.
- 7. Source does not verify these claims "His most prominent work for the show to that point had been the "Nightmare Cafeteria" segment in the season six episode "Treehouse of Horror V"."
- That is verified by ref 5, do you want me to remove ref 4?
- 8. Neither this or this source can verify the wording - "The Simpsons staff wanted to bring McCartney onto the show, and David Mirkin thought "Lisa the Vegetarian" would be an attractive story, since McCartney is a vegetarian himself"
- The "attractive" part comes from the DVD commentary.
- 9. This source cannot verify this statement - "resulting in one of the few permanent character changes made in the show"
- That is verified by ref 10, do yo want me to remove ref 11, or move it to after the "would remain a vegetarian" part?
- 10. This source does not verify this wording - "Mirkin also recruited"
- You already brought this up in #3.
- 11. Many of the papers like The Denver Post and The Hamilton Spectator are missing online links.
- These articles are (most likely) not available online. They have been access with NewsBank. I can send them to you via email, if you want to.
- 12. This source cannot verify Apu saying "I learned long ago to tolerate...". It only has '"It's like Paul's song 'Live and Let Live.' " Paul McCartney: "Actually, it was 'Live and Let Die.' " Apu: "Well, whatever, whatever. It's got a good rhythm." ("Lisa the Vegetarian")' The line is also followed by an off-topic explanation of the song.
- That is verified by ref 1, do you want me to remove ref 22? Also, I removed the off-topic explanation.
- - Many of the sources are offline and cannot be checked. The spot checking ended about 2/3s of the way through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote this article before you brought up the sourcing issues at my RfA, so I'm very sorry for not checking on this before the FAC nomination. I'll go through the article as soon as possible, and I can provide the offline sources to you via email. Theleftorium 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that or that you wrote it. I've just been going through all of the articles from the bottom and putting in sourcing critics. It is starting to become a blur right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that it is a serious problem, and I've begun to improve my edits. Theleftorium 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the above is important. If there is another ref that verifies the comment and I did not mention it, chances are I could not access it to determine where it comes from. However, if you have two sources saying the same thing and one leaves out an important statement, it is best to drop the reuse of the weaker source. Anyway, I will not oppose on sourcing issues, as I will just be going through and finding what I can and put it forth in as neutral as a manner as possible. Others can determine if the problems are fixed to their satisfaction so I will not be wrapped up in judgment calls or subjectivity. Good luck with the rest of the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that it is a serious problem, and I've begun to improve my edits. Theleftorium 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that or that you wrote it. I've just been going through all of the articles from the bottom and putting in sourcing critics. It is starting to become a blur right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote this article before you brought up the sourcing issues at my RfA, so I'm very sorry for not checking on this before the FAC nomination. I'll go through the article as soon as possible, and I can provide the offline sources to you via email. Theleftorium 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question—why are the people who contributed to the DVD commentary listed in the infobox? That seems highly unnecessary—listing out the key creative contributors of an episode is logical, but the listing out the commentators on the DVD is trivial. indopug (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. They're listed in the Merchandising section, anyway. Theleftorium 09:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe I have addressed all the sourcing issues now, including the offline sources. Theleftorium 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.