Talk:The War of the Simpsons

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The War of the Simpsons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The War of the Simpsons has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The War of the Simpsons is part of the The Simpsons (season 2) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
April 13, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Animation: American / Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).

The Simpsons Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

edit

Collaboration: Featured topic Drive
Copyedit:
Merge:
Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten
Shorten plot synopsis:
Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen
Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield
Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out
Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More...

"The Southerner"[edit]

One of the plot points in Jean Renoir's 1945 film, "The Southerner" (usually thought of as his most successful American picture), involves a feud between the eponymous poor Southern farmer (or was it his children?) and a neighbor, over who will catch a giant catfish, "old Lead Pencil." If I remember correctly, there may be some dispute in the film whether Lead Pencil really exists. I had always assumed Renoir's giant catfish was one of the inspirations for General Sherman, but can't find any support for this theory at, e.g., SNPP's episode capsule. Does anyone else agree? Kmbush40 11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The War of the Simpsons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "How rows out on the lake and catches his fish" is "How" supposed to be "Homer"?
Done
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Cultural references section, "The way Ned Flanders prepares the cocktails at the party is similar to actor Tom Cruise's bartending stunts in the film Cocktail" ---> "The way Ned Flanders prepares the cocktails at the party is similar to actor Tom Cruise's bartending stunts in the 1988 film Cocktail. "This sequence and the music in it are references to a scene in the film The Omen" ---> "This sequence and the music in it are references to a scene in the film The Omen (1976)", so that it can provide context for the reader.
Not done The release dates are not mentioned in the references. Are you sure it's not considered original research to add them?
No, they shouldn't be original research. Besides, if the references don't include them, the link article itself will include it. It shouldn't be a problem. But, I won't hold it against you.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No screenshot?
There is no screenshot available that passes WP:NFCC#8.
I was just wondering if there was one available.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some questions further up. Thanks for reviewing! :) TheLeft orium 11:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've answered them and you're welcome for it. Thank you to Theleftorium for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I added the release dates to the cultural references section (the reason I'm worried about adding original research is because of the opposing votes at my recently withdrawn RFA). TheLeft orium 22:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]