Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cape Feare

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Cape Feare[edit]

This is an article about an episode from the TV series The Simpsons. The article was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. Compared to the House episode, this article holds more information that is not just the synopsis. The article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come during this candidacy. --Maitch 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't the "Three Little Maids From School Are We" song from The Mikado, sung by the Simpson family during their car ride, be mentioned in the cultural references section? Or is this supposed to only be for "hidden" references? Andrew Levine 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I left out the cultural references I could not cite. I could mention a few more myself. --Maitch 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine that you could simply cite the libretto; after all, they sing five complete, unaltered lines from the song. Andrew Levine 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel a bit uneasy about it, but if the people involved in this FAC thinks it is a good idea, then I could include it. --Maitch 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I decided to include it. Since it is not a matter of interpretation I do not think there is a need for an additional reference. --Maitch 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article, especially the production section. The lead could use a bit more bulking. Agreed with the above commentor; the cultural references should probably be expanded. Shrumster 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, cultural references sections aren't needed as they just seem sloppy and thrown together. I think most of the stuff that can be easily sourced is there. -- Scorpion 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The concerns I raised during peer review have been dealt with. I also supported Pilot (House) and I think that this article is better. Jay32183 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Image:Rake_Joke.png and~~ Image:Bates Motel.png ~~are~~is decorative fair use. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the fair use rationales state otherwise, you will have to be more specific. Jay32183 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder if you could direct me to a formal policy describing when an image is "decorative". Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, which is a FA, uses five screenshots and I can't see the difference between those and the ones in this article. --Maitch 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FISHING. I do not believe the screen caps are discussed adequately - perhaps the rake scene, but more importantly the motel, which is basically just throwing a fair-use image in that does not, in any way, provide information beyond the text. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both of the screen caps illustrate stuff discussed within the article. BatesMotel shows that it is a reference to Psycho and Rake_Joke shows one of the more famous sequences from the episodes, which is discussed at length. -- Scorpion 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What does having the image of the sign substantially add to the article? I cave on the rakes - while I still think the value the image adds does not outweigh, oh, having a free encyclopedia, and I am 99% certain that image will be deleted within the next 3 months when the new fair-use dicta comes out, I'll pass, for now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My point is that you claim it's just for decoration, but the BatesMotel image illustrates a point made in the article. -- Scorpion 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Does the image add substantial non-decorative value to the article? How so? How is the image any better than writing, in the text, that "there was a sign outside the motel that said Bates Motel?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My point was that the image has a complete fair use rationale and you aren't making an argument as to why that rationale is insufficient or false. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your assessment, I just want you to frame a better argument. Jay32183 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Part of WP:FUC reads "The material must contribute significantly to the article." This image does not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But you are still ignoring the fact that fair use rationale claims it does. You must make an argument with regards to that fair use rationale. Jay32183 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it does. The article makes a point and the image illustrates it. There was an image in there before that WAS decorative, but this one is not there just for decoration. -- Scorpion 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say that the rake scene may be a little baffling to someone who hasn't seen the episode and the picture might help, but the sign is easy to imagine and doesn't need to be illustrated. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I fully support the statement of CC directly above, and reiterate my oppose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with the policy that states that fair use images may not be "decorative" is that in most cases it is a subjective assessment. If I wanted images that just looked pretty, I would have used some other screenshots. Actually, I removed one image prior to this nomination because it was purely decorative. The images left had relevance to the article. I don't consider it just decorative and therefore I believe that the image should stay. In this case I think we should let the majority rule, so if you can find more people who are against the inclusion of this image, I will remove the image. --Maitch 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not how things work here. Consensus (or majority voting, which we NEVER use) does not trump policy, which you are violating. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if I am not following policy, which you still have not proven that I do, then it should not be very hard to find people supporting your objection. --Maitch 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I give up. I won't insert the image again. --Maitch 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article still needs a little work. It could use a good copyediting as some of the prose contains several uses of the word "the". Overall, I'd say that it's one of the better Simpsons articles. -- Scorpion 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say Support. "The" is pretty unavoidable and didn't jump out at me. I think the intro can be longer, but then again, there might not be much to summarize without people saying "You can't say that, it's POV." Altogether, it's great work. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to expand the lead a bit. I know it is slightly POV, but there are plenty of citations to back it up in the reception section. --Maitch 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the lead could be a tiny bit bigger, but then again that could be hard. So its good, very good. Gran2 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd almost forgotten to add my support. I have gone over the article a dozen times and I am now happy with it. -- Scorpion 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bob stepping on a rake is alluded to several times without ever explaining what this actually entails and what sort of abuse to his person this inflicts, i.e. the rake's handle hits him in the face. It is very possible that people reading this article who have not seen the episode may be confused. Some way should be found to correct this. Andrew Levine 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, it's baffling. I was trying to think of a way to say that- "the rake's handle hits him in the face" will do. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm partially reponsible for that, I don't like getting too detailed with jokes in the synopsis, especially throw away gags, and I didn't think it was necessary to get into too much detail. -- Scorpion 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, pls see WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pilot (House) and Abyssinia, Henry are both FAs and they have short leads. -- Scorpion 04:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LEAD says one or two paragraphs for less than 15000 characters, which the article follows. You have to be a bit more specific as to what your objection is. --Maitch 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pilot House and Abyssinia are not under review here; the lead should summarize the article, able to serve as a stand-alone article. Whether it is one paragraph or four, this lead does not summarize the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it does. What more do you want? An extended summary? Some of the production information? I looked at some film FAs and they have general production info (check), a BRIEF summary (check) and info on its release/impact. (check). What else needs to be added? -- Scorpion 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I have expanded the lead. Is this what you want? --Maitch 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.