Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Principal and the Pauper/archive2

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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 09:16, 23 August 2008 [1].

The Principal and the Pauper

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

previous FAC (22:29, 14 May 2008)

After some copyediting by Risker and some reworking of the sections, I think this page has improved since the previous FAC. Any concerns will be addressed by me or Cirt. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this article is of a high level of quality but I was a significant contributor to it, particularly to the Reception section. I will try to help address any concerns that crop up. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

Fox vs Fox Network. Does it constitute overlinking when it is linked in the main section and the lead?
"The episode ended with a self-referential deus ex machina, which left viewers to either "reset" or accept the change." Could you expand this a little? I really don't understand it
- The deus ex machina is when the real Skinner is sent out of town on a train, and the people of Springfield pretend that everything is back to normal. The ending gives the viewers the option to basically ignore everything that was just revealed in the episode. We do need to elaborate on this in the article (and I'm not sure if the current sentence even fits within the flow of its paragraph). Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think something needs adding. How are viewers given an option to ignore what happened, for example? I haven't seen the episode so I can't even imagine it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The end scenes of the episode make it clear that its plot will have no bearing on future episodes. (For example, the character Judge Snyder says that no one will mention the name "Armin Tamzarian" under penalty of torture.) But, in truth, I'm not sure how many viewers were actually able to mentally reset. We should probably add some more information about the critics' response to the ending. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't sound like a viewer's option to mentally reset as if the episode never happened, rather it simply won't ever be referenced to on screen. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole idea of "resetting" comes from something one of the producers said in the DVD commentary. But I agree, it's a vague notion. I'm just going to remove that sentence, unless someone else thinks he/she can make sense of it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...and a little bit off."[4] vs "just lacked pizzazz".[7] Inconsistent period placement
- In the first example, we're quoting a full sentence. In the second, we're just quoting a few words, so the punctuation goes outside. (At least, that's how I understand logical quotation. If I'm wrong, let me know.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's the correct way to do it if that is what's being followed. I just wasn't sure if it was or not. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was "Golden era" capitalised in the original quote? Can we get a reference for Chris Turner's quotes, too?
- Well, Turner actually uses the phrase "Golden Age", which is capitalized. All the quotes are cited to ref #12. Zagalejo^^^ 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"remains to this day among the weakest episodes in Simpsons history" Simpsons the family, or Simpsons the show? If it's the latter it should be itallicised
- Yes, it's a reference to the show (and it's italicized in the source). Zagalejo^^^ 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over-linking on The Star-Ledger
ISO 8601 date for the {{cite episode}} template in reference 21 please.
The article seems to present too much of a U.S. view rather than a worldwide one. Can airdates and networks be provided for at least the other major English language countries such as Canada, UK, Australia and NZ?
- I've tried finding some ratings info for other countries, but it's nearly impossible for a decade old episode. As well, we traditionally only mention the original US airing, since that's the country of origin. It should be noted that the reviews section includes comments from at least one Canadian and at least one Brit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - When do new episodes typically air in Canada? About the same time as in the US, or weeks/months/years later? (I might have asked this before. If so, I don't remember the answer.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - New episodes usually air at the exact same time as they do in the States. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Pretty good overall. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more Is there a particular reason the quote box is in green? Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, that's the way it was done at To Kill a Mockingbird. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Zagalejo^^^ 19:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It just seems like the colour is there simply because it can be. See what it looks like as just a white box. If you guys feel it does need colour, try that pinky/purple that Season 9 uses. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. - Box is now white and no longer green. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comments from Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I'm still not satisfied with the "Critical reviews" section. Does Glen Richards say anything more substantial? If that's all he says, then we don't really need to mention him. (I brought this up on the article talk page a while ago.) We should also mention the concept of jumping the shark, but I'll get to that after the Glen Richards thing is resolved. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the one who added that review, I think Cirt did, so I'll see if he can get anything else from it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will look into it. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) should have the relevant source material now. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I decided to just remove the revie, since Richards didn't say anything other than his belief that the golden age continued into season 12. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, no objections here. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. I still want to fiddle with that section a little more, to try to mold it into an actual paragraph. Right now, it's just a bunch of loosely connected bullet points. We need to develop ideas and make transitions. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyone have a copy of this book? It comes up when I do an Amazon.com search for Armin Tamzarian, but I can't get a preview of the relevant page. If not, I think I'll look for it at the library. Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm still trying to track down a copy of the book, in case anyone was wondering. Zagalejo^^^ 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I will try to look into this as well and help you out. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said at your talk page, I was able to find what I needed by using different search terms at Amazon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Can we get a page number for the first ref? I think I sold my copy of that book. Zagalejo^^^ 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is that all you can find on the production? I'm a bit wary when FACs for television episode articles are under 20KB, because they may not be comprehensive enough. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive26#Comprehensive, when 200 (Stargate SG-1) was criticised for being only 2kb shorter. If you can only get that much with the source material you have, then I have no objection, but I feel that it must be a bit longer if possible. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, production info for specific episodes is usually limited to what is said in the DVD commentaries. And the commentary for "The Principal and the Pauper" mainly consists of people trying to defend or explain the episode. Any particular aspects of the production you'd like to learn more about? Zagalejo^^^ 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt that production information is solely in the commentaries. Speaking as an episode article writer myself, I know that most information comes from them, but I do know that, if you look, there's a decent amount of source material. Have a look at SNPP; they might have links to where you can find such material. One thing I have noticed is that you only cite the season 9/10 book behind-the-scenes book once. Is that all you can find that is suitable for the article? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The season 9/10 book isn't a "behind the scenes" book; it's mostly episode recaps, with explanations of some of the allusions. Are you speaking as a "Simpsons episode article writer", or just as someone who writes television episode articles in general? If the former, where do you generally get your production information? Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, but you still haven't answered my question - is that the only information you can find about the production (I count outside references to count as part of the production; I normally discuss it with the writing). I'm primarily a Doctor Who episode writer. I get most of my production information from commentaries, the companion behind-the-scenes series, the official magazine, any books released about the series, and specialist sites which research the older episodes. I know that the Simpsons doesn't have a companion behind-the-scenes show, or an official magazine about production, but it has books about it and commentaries. I also think you might have a bit more luck if you searched for newspaper interviews (which are more abundant for US shows than UK shows) too. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what you mean by, "I count outside references to count as part of the production; I normally discuss it with the writing." But, no, I haven't found any additional production information. Granted, I don't have access to as many online newspaper articles as I used to have, but in my experience, those articles never have much, beyond maybe a sentence or two here and there. Do understand that Dr. Who is live action, so its production is very different from that of The Simpsons.
        
        At the moment, I'm still looking for some more Reception material. If I do find additional production information, I'll add it to the article, but I don't expect to find much. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A show being live-action doesn't mean that it's completely different. The writing stage is the same. And anyway, our second-longest episode FA, Trapped in the Closet (South Park), is nearly three times as long as this article. Granted, it was controversial, but we have several paragraphs about the production. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Eh, that's an extreme example. The average South Park episode won't have as much production material. Note that there is some information about this episode's writing process scattered throughout the Reception section, since it makes more sense to discuss it there. Zagalejo^^^ 01:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if the case is there's a lack of the expected level content about reception... how hard would it be to find reviews of this episode? I think it would be a bit easier, because I know this episode is very controversial. Try Google News for reviews - they often have several. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I think we have enough Reception information already. I'm just checking to see if there's something interesting that we missed. I'm very familiar with Google News, Google Books and all that, and I think we've squeezed out everything we can get from those sources. But there are other archives I still want to check. Zagalejo^^^ 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You can never have enough reception and production information. Look at our three longest episode FAs: Through the Looking Glass (Lost), Trapped in the Closet (South Park), and The Stolen Earth, both around 50KB. "Trapped in the Closet" lives off the critics, "Through the Looking Glass" contains 29 different reviews, and The Stolen Earth has seven paragraphs about the critique. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll try to do some more research to find additional material for reception, and if possible, production. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Seven paragraphs is overkill, IMO. Who's going to read all of that? That's siginificantly more than the synopsis. I think it's better to seek out the most insightful comments, rather than try to include everything. Zagalejo^^^ 02:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the production is around ten or eleven paragraphs long. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Getting back to an older question: is there any specific aspect of the production not discussed in the article that you think should be addressed? Or do you simply equate length with quality? Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have a baseline: over 20kb, an episode article is normally comprehensive enough to be a featured article. Under 20kb, it's better as a good article. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But an article can be comprehensive without being long. Again, are there any general aspects of production you want to learn more about? Zagalejo^^^ 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you're still following this discussion, I've squeezed a little bit more production information out of the DVD commentary. Zagalejo^^^ 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been resolved. If the production section is as comprehensive as it can be right now, then I don't have a problem with it either, it still meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't know if this is standard practice but I think, just as we need page numbers for books, we need to get the times from the DVD commentaries (and an ISSN?). Not a reason to oppose but I think in the future this will be expected just as page numbers--especially for TV episodes where commentary is one of our best sources. gren グレン 06:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. Also, "commentary for the episode 'The Principal and the Pauper'" probably shouldn't be in italics. Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - do DVDs have ISSNs? Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think the DVD commentary refs should look like this:

Keeler, Ken. (2006). Commentary for "The Principal and the Pauper", in The Simpsons: The Complete Ninth Season [DVD]. 20th Century Fox, [time?]. [ISSN?]

Anyone agree/disagree? The current format just doesn't look right to me. Zagalejo^^^ 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that DVDs have ISSNs, though I could be wrong on that. Other than that, the formatting you propose looks great. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note, the cite video template automatically puts stuff in italics. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But that template wasn't specifically designed to accommodate DVD commentaries. Zagalejo^^^ 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the refs. I can probably add the times sometime later. Zagalejo^^^ 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustments to the refs looks excellent, IMO. If you have a chance could you adjust the formatting in the same manner for uniformity to the other Simpsons WP:FAs? If not, no worries. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll get going on that soon. Zagalejo^^^ 03:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that will be awesome. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the times for the commentary material. If someone wants to double-check those, that'd be great. Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a site that lists some foreign air dates, and some foreign language titles: [2]. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it could give us some leads for more information. Zagalejo^^^ 06:48, 23 August 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.