Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Last Temptation of Krust

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 00:10, 12 March 2008.

The Last Temptation of Krust[edit]

previous FAC (17:13, 1 March 2008)
Check external links

Self nomination. This is a stable WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. The article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9). It had a prior FAC discussion, and all points from that discussion were addressed. After that FAC discussion was closed, the article also has undergone a bit of copy-editing. I believe it meets the criteria, and will do my best to address comments as they crop up in this FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - fits the bill. I was the initial GA reviewer and since then the page has been built on and built on. Certainly complies with FAC criteria, perhaps even beyond that. Rudget (?) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail Writing needs major work from top to bottom. Also, why does the production section start in media res? We need more context and explication of its significance. There is too much here that is just dressed-up trivia. More context for the Canyonero spoof - yes, a parady of a ford ad - ok, which one? Link please. And references? And can we get some secondary material from proper advertising and marketing journals that reference either the spoof or the ads it is spoofing? Need some proper depth here. A further issue, the flow is wrong: William Irwin's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer discusses a scene from the episode where Krusty incites members of his audience to burn their money.[19] Although Homer tells Marge to give him all the cash in her purse, she instead gives it to Lisa and tells her to run home and bury it in the backyard. Irwin called this an example of Marge's passive resistance, her moral influence on Lisa, and her value as a role model for her children.[19] Aside from how badly written this is, we should note these kinds of elements in the lede, instead of simply a plot summary. Canyonero is ref'ed in the lede in its in-universe context. Instead, as a very memorable spoof, its real-world significance should be underlined. Etc etc etc... Eusebeus (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for this feedback, I'll do my best to address these points and note it here after I have done so. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cirt, I still oppose but here's something to include perhaps: the Canyonero spoof coincided with an increase in "guerilla marketing" campaigns against SUVs.

Similarly, the group Earth on Empty promotes its ‘National Anti-SUV Parking Ticket Campaign’ through mock parking tickets (to be placed upon SUVs) noting the ecological and safety effects of those vehicles in comparison with passenger cars, and admonishing their recipients that ‘failure to pay attention to your own behaviour is hazardous to everyone’ (Earth on Empty, 2005). Even the popular animated television series ‘The Simpsons’ joined the anti-SUV fray in 1998, featuring a mammoth vehicle called the ‘Canyonero’ (marketed with the jingle: ‘Twelve yards long, two lanes wide/Sixty-five tons of American pride!’), which promised to help the family transcend its mundane station-wagon existence but instead brought only misery.

  • Citation details: assessing the case against the SUV, Steve Vanderheiden, Environmental Politics, Vol. 15, No. 1, 23 – 40, February 2006 (quotation page 26). Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, thanks for providing this information, this will be helpful in addressing your concerns, I will add some of the above info to the article. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added this info to the article, will continue to address some more of the above points, expanded a bit more on info about the Canyonero in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cut down that long bit from the (Irwin) source, to just a simple mention that Irwin referenced the episode in his book - if readers want to find out more detail they can just check the cite for the detailed source info. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I had minor concerns in the last FAC but they were addressed. I feel that the article fully meets the FA criteria. --Laser brain (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Performed a copy-edit myself. Very good article indeed. indopug (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - short but good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The piece looks good and all the refences check out, although the connection to the MSN one timed out on me first time round. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I just checked that link, loaded right up real fast for me, so maybe that was just a fluke. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See contribs for Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Addressed comments by Buc (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead focuses too much on the plot and not enough on the Reception and Production for me. Buc (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there was more emphasis on Reception and Production in a previous version of the lead that was longer, but after the review process from the prior FAC, peer review, etc, the lead was actually cut way down. But, if you feel that Reception/Production info should be there, I will add a brief summary of that back into the lead. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in response to this comment by Bole2 (talk · contribs), I have added more summary from the Production/Reception sections to the WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jay Leno reprised his role as an animated version of himself on 24 July 2007, in a special animation segment when Homer appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to promote The Simpsons Movie. In a released statement, Homer said "I understand I'm doing a monologue, I hope it doesn't involve talking." Homer appeared alongside Leno in his opening monologue "scooping up a new 'Duff & D'oh-Nuts' flavour". The Tonight Show was Homer's "[only] publicity appearance" to promote The Simpsons Movie." Nothing to do with the episode.
  • "The Last Temptation of Christ, whose title was previously spoofed in "The Last Temptation of Homer" also nothing to do with the episode.

Buc (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, will address these points shortly. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The Last Temptation of Christ, whose title was previously spoofed in "The Last Temptation of Homer" also nothing to do with the episode. -- Removed this sentence. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Jay Leno reprised his role as an animated version of himself..." -- Per the FAC comment above from Bole2 (talk · contribs), I went ahead and removed this entire paragraph and accompanying image. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode first aired on 22 February 1998, and includes a cameo appearance by comedian Jay Leno..." spilt into two sentences.
  1. "The episode first aired on 22 February 1998, and includes a cameo appearance by comedian Jay Leno..." spilt into two sentences. -- Done. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Irwin's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer references a scene from the episode as an example of Marge's passive resistance, her moral influence on Lisa, and her value as a role model for her children." Not sure this counts as reception to the episode, it's not clear from this if they liked the episode or not.
  1. "William Irwin's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer references a scene from the episode as an example of Marge's passive resistance, her moral influence on Lisa, and her value as a role model for her children." Not sure this counts as reception to the episode, it's not clear from this if they liked the episode or not. -- Done. I shortened this to simply mention that Irwin cites an example of the episode in the book to illustrate something, brief enough to be in Reception section. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Persuaded by Bart to appear at a comedy festival organized by Jay Leno, Krusty's old-fashioned and dated material fails to impress when compared with other, more trendy comics also appearing" could be split into two maybe even three sentences.
  1. "Persuaded by Bart to appear at a comedy festival organized by Jay Leno, Krusty's old-fashioned and dated material fails to impress when compared with other, more trendy comics also appearing" could be split into two maybe even three sentences. -- Done. Split into 2 sentences, as recommended. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stanley Cup mentioned in Production but not in Cultural references.
  • Could do which a small c/e. I'll see what I can do myself.
  • Production section seems a bit short.
  • "The title is reference to the controversial novel and film The Last Temptation of Christ" in the lead but not mentioned later.
  1. Stanley Cup mentioned in Production but not in Cultural references. -- Not sure what the purpose would be of mentioning the exact same info in 2 different subsections of the article - there is not much more to say on this except for the brief mention already given, and there isn't more discussion of this in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly a cultural reference. so why not mention it? Buc (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you mention it in such a way so as not to be a dup reference to what is already mentioned in the Production section? Cirt (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove it from the Production section. Buc (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have removed this info from the Production section, and moved it to the Cultural references section, in response to this FAC comment from Bole2 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Could do which a small c/e. I'll see what I can do myself. -- My thanks to Indopug (talk · contribs) who has already done some great c/e on this article, as have others, but of course any more copy-editing would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot summary in the lead doesn't quite cover the whole episode.
  • "The episode was received positively by critics". Really? Every single one?

It is very close to FA status though. Buc (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "The title is reference to the controversial novel and film The Last Temptation of Christ" in the lerad but not mentioned later. -- Done. This was removed. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite what I had in mind. Buc (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but it is clearly not really needed, is sort of WP:OR anyway, and it does directly address your above comment. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Production section seems a bit short. -- If you know of any other sources that discussion production info on this episode, be my guest and feel free to add it to the article. This is pretty much all that was in the DVD commentary, and I do not feel that the article's FA candidacy should be held up just for that. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The DVD commentary is not the only place you would find info about the Production. Buc (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in working on this article I have looked through many different databases in attempts to find more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. In all of those sources, I found info from secondary sources for many different parts of the article, but the DVD Commentary was really the best source for the Production section. But if you know of another WP:RS/WP:V source to expand the Production section, I'd be glad to have that addition to the article, and your help would be much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not totally necessary. But it's something to work on even if it gains FA status. Buc (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well thanks for noting I had addressed your other points, above - and I will continue to look for additional sources that discuss this episode, specifically for sources that discuss production of this episode, just not sure I will find much more or that there are many more to be found out there. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Plot summary in the lead doesn't quite cover the whole episode. -- Done. - Added a teensy bit more to the plot summary in the lead, now it looks adequate. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The episode was received positively by critics". Really? Every single one? -- Done. - Removed this phrasing. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Nearly there, (Sorry, I place this as a place holder only really) - I agree with Eusebeus in that the importance of the Canyonero (one of the most memorable bits of the episode really), really needs to be highlighted WRT to SUVs and marketing etc. I would have thought this worthy of a subsection in Cultural references at least summarising why SUV advertising is controversial and which ad is being parodied. Even a sociological mention of celebrities 'selling out'. This needn't be long but solves the 'in-universe' proble, which I feel there is still a little too much emphasis of in the article. However, nearly there and good work otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will do my best to address this, but unless we can find secondary sources that specifically make the type of analysis/comparisons you are talking about, this type of section almost seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. But I will see what I can do. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a good deal more about the Canyonero, will continue to add a bit more info from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even a statement on which model Ford was plugging and when the ad was aired would be good. Looking better though. The context needn't solely come from Simpsons=related material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will continue to work on this a bit more and will let you know if I need some help or have exhausted secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Support. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The references are solid and the prose is good- there were one or two tweaks I preformed, but they were minor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments
  • Is it fair to call Leno's role a "cameo" appearance? He has a fairly significant role in the episode.
  • After going on a drinking binge, Bart and Jay Leno bathe Krusty in the Simpsons' house, and he decides to announce his retirement. This sentence needs to be recast. It sounds like Bart and Leno were out drinking, when it was just Krusty.
  • At his retirement press conference the audience finds his tirade against modern comedy hysterical, and he returns to comedy with a new style and appearance and complains about commercialism. and..and..and Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should probably write an article for Bruce Baum.
  • What role did rock festivals have in the inspiration for this episode? Comedy festivals - sure, that makes sense. But I don't see the connection to rock festivals. (Unless we're talking about festivals that contain a bit of both comedy and rock.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stereotypical jokes were allowed because the writers convinced the network censors that viewers would understand it was simply emphasizing Krusty's dated comedic material. What's the antecedent for "it"?
  • The paragraphs in the "Production" section just don't flow very well. Each is just an assortment of facts, with no topic sentences or unifying ideas. In the first paragraph of that section, we bounce from Krusty's outdated jokes to the NHL to Krusty in the bathtub.
  • The second paragraph of "Cultural references" could probably be split up into two: one paragraph about in-universe elements of the Canyonero, and another paragraph about analysis/commentary.
  • The Washington Times, in its review of the season nine DVD, noted: "Among the 22-minute gems found in the set, I most enjoyed ... [Krusty's] work with Jay Leno". Shouldn't we mention the author of the article? The "I" in the quote is not the newspaper, but the writer. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it fair to call Leno's role a "cameo" appearance? He has a fairly significant role in the episode. -- Done. Removed "cameo", probably best, as Zagalejo (talk · contribs) is correct, it isn't really just a cameo appearance. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "After going on a drinking binge, Bart and Jay Leno bathe Krusty in the Simpsons' house, and he decides to announce his retirement." This sentence needs to be recast. It sounds like Bart and Leno were out drinking, when it was just Krusty. -- Done. Fixed wording in this sentence to be clearer. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "At his retirement press conference the audience finds his tirade against modern comedy hysterical, and he returns to comedy with a new style and appearance and complains about commercialism." and..and..and Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- Done. Adjusted wording to remove dup usage of word "and". Cirt (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We should probably write an article for Bruce Baum. -- Yes, someone probably could make a case for notability in an article about Bruce Baum, but not having an article on a topic tangentially related to one article that is an FA candidate should not preclude that particular article's FA candidacy, in my opinion. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. It just seems a little incongruous to say that he became popular after the show, and still not have an article about him. (If I have time, though, I'll see if I can put an article together.) Zagalejo^^^ 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What role did "rock" festivals have in the inspiration for this episode? Comedy festivals - sure, that makes sense. But I don't see the connection to rock festivals. (Unless we're talking about festivals that contain a bit of both comedy and rock.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- Done. This was specifically mentioned in the DVD commentary, re: the influence from both "rock" and "comedy" festivals. However, as this was perhaps unclear to the reader, and not really necessary, I removed both instances of "rock". Cirt (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The paragraphs in the "Production" section just don't flow very well. Each is just an assortment of facts, with no topic sentences or unifying ideas. In the first paragraph of that section, we bounce from Krusty's outdated jokes to the NHL to Krusty in the bathtub. -- Perhaps you could help and edit the wording somehow to flow better? I was simply listing particularly relevant comments from the DVD commentary, they are not necessarily all directly related to one another, but are production notes that would be interesting to the reader and thus belong in the "Production" section. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The second paragraph of "Cultural references" could probably be split up into two: one paragraph about in-universe elements of the Canyonero, and another paragraph about analysis/commentary. -- Done. I have split this paragraph into 2 paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "The Washington Times, in its review of the season nine DVD, noted: "Among the 22-minute gems found in the set, I most enjoyed ... [Krusty's] work with Jay Leno". Shouldn't we mention the author of the article? The "I" in the quote is not the newspaper, but the writer. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- Done. I adjusted the wording in this sentence to include the name of the author of the review. Cirt (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note

There are still a few more points in the above FAC comments here that I am planning to address and note here, as well as a little bit more info I'd like to include from secondary sources, as requested by a couple editors. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - unexplained "supports" are a matter for the courts concern. This is looking much better - it will probably need a final copy-edit when the last references are added in and the flow has been tightened up, but the article is much stronger. Many kudos to Cirt for his work and receptiveness to the proffered critical comments. However, I am dismayed that this article, when first nominated, garnered so many votes to promote given the clear need for improvement and the problems that needed to be addressed. Perhaps editors feel that somehow TV episode articles don't merit much serious consideration beyond remedial copy-edit concerns, but if so, that is highly regrettable. All featured articles should merit serious consideration and the throwaway support votes above come across as rather mindless. This particular instance seems to reinforce the recent discussion of what is wrong with the entire FA process and suggests that we need to fix a broken process. Eusebeus (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: All of the "Support" comments have come from editors that have not been significantly involved in the editing process of this article. One editor was the article's initial GA Reviewer, and others had reviewed the article in a prior FAC. Simply because they did not write out long drawn out statements in multiple paragraphs explaining their reasoning for their "Supports", does not mean that their sentiments should be discounted in any way. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eusebeus, 1) this discussion would be more appropriate at WT:FAC (please move it there), and 2) the process is "broken" if you see an article promoted over significant or actionable opposes. Has that happened here? Please take this discussion to WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, I will - an RfC is in order probably, although I have no interest taking the lead on that. But I think propriety is served pointing out directly where promote votes seem to fail to live up to the standards of FA. This way the editors in question can respond directly to my being such a *$!@*&^ douche about it and point out how wrong I am. Anyway Sandy, I appreciate the work you do here on FA. You must have a goddam ton of edits on FA alone and your views carry as a result a lot of weight - that's obvious so no need to get too hot and bothered. But the process is broken, yea. Clearly. Otherwise, we would not have such Creampuff Caspar MilqueToast promote votes like the ones on this (and other) FAs. Eusebeus (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes and no, the other thing to take into consideration is that I am sure Sandy and Raul are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of many reviewers. Your note was one of the reasons I made sure my comment was an oppose until addressed. Also, some others have chimed in subsequently with other copyediting-type issues, which is good. Part of the problem is I think not a conscious one, in that some reviewers might be unconsciously less critical of prose not having seen some really good examples. I find the same thing happens in sporting articles as well, however generally someone manages to pass by to give it a grilling. I suspect odd ones 'get-through' from time to time without having a proper prose massage but they may be rare. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) that this particular FAC discussion is not the right venue for this thread, which would be more appropriate for (and should probably be moved to) WT:FAC. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Eusebeus, again, 1) please take it to WT:FAC for an appropriate and broader audience, and 2) your efforts would be better spent dropping talk page notes to those editors who enter declarations of concern than railing at one individual FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—The writing is reasonable (probably good enough to pass FAC WRT Cr. 1). I see curly quotes, which MOS proscribes. Ellipsis dots not always spaced correctly. Some of the final periods are wrongly located in quotes that start within a WP sentence (see MOS). Unsure whether the double-hyphen interrupter within a quotation should be made into an en dash (I would). Apart from these trivials, I can't see anything to get worked up about, except that the content itself is aggressively trivial. Eusebeus, it might be preferable to let go your annoyance: far worse FACs are let through in a torrent of superficial "Support"s. Tony (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tony1 (talk · contribs) for your comment - I will take another look and see if I can't do some more fixes with some of these minor quotation issues. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Promotion All major issues have been addressed & the article is looking much better. Eusebeus (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of my comments were addressed. My only remaining concern is that some of the paragraphs in later sections (like production) seem somewhat unfocused, and could use smoother transitions between ideas. I said I would work on it, and I'd like to, although I haven't figured out exactly how to tackle that problem. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some minor tweaking/copy-edits to the Production section, but feel free to take another crack at it if you wish, Zagalejo (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: all these people went through, and WP:PUNC fixes are still needed throughout, unless I'm mixed up (maybe I am, because Tony wouldn't usually miss that, pls check). Example: ""Among the 22-minute gems found in the set, I most enjoyed ... [Krusty's] work with Jay Leno".[22] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence was worded differently before, but someone else reworked it. I will take another look through the article to see if I can find and fix these minor WP:PUNC issues. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be more specific? I took a look at that sentence, and the punctuation looks fine. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression (from previous comments by others in prior FACs I have participated in) that, with this example the quote is not a fully quoted sentence, and thus the punctuation goes outside the quotation. In some cases I am starting to get the feeling that this is a personal preference, because in different FACs it seems like editors are giving conflicting criticisms about the placement of punctuation as related to quotes. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by the wording at WP:PUNC: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)." I could be off, but I think there is some mixup on when punctuation is in or outside of quotes. It's not a big issue, but perhaps review with Tony1? Epbr123 used to pick up this sort of stuff, but he's gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "sense" of the quotation? This seems to be something subjective and subject to interpretation. I had previously gone through the article and fixed quotation punctuation with regard to partial-quotes having punctuation outside the quotes, and fully quoted sentences with punctuation inside the quotes. I will now go back through the article again, and make changes with regard to your latest comment here. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went back through the article and made punctuation adjustments re: last comment by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). If other editors come along and ding me for these new adjustments, I was doing my best to incorporate the part of WP:PUNC cited by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), above. (Again, I feel that this quote/punctuation/WP:PUNC stuff can be very confusing, and is often subjective and subject to interpretation - but nonetheless, I did my best to address these comments and made some changes.) Cirt (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Last_Temptation_of_Krust&oldid=1126595715"