370:
235:
194:
180:
143:
129:
347:
333:
302:
278:
245:
208:
149:
with the language. Another example is the "Reception" section, where the verb "say" is repeated infinitely instead of using synonyms. This section also makes excessive use of quotations, rather than summarising and rewriting the critics' opinions. There are also too many single- or two-sentence paragraphs, and one very short section ("Cultural references"). This should be avoided, see
627:, which contains plenty of information on the animation, but here there is next to nothing (apart from brief mentions of Milhouse's mother looking a bit like him, and Amadopoulos looking like Onassis.) This seems to me a serious violation of 3a, when one of the main aspects of the topic is simply left out, and for no good reason.
441:
shadows and back-lighting used in the plant, which was really quite advanced for such an early episode. However, it seems you have removed also this information, I'm not quite sure why. The image had proper fair use rationale, and served a purpose, so I have to say I strongly disagree with its removal.
510:
Don't be silly, I've clearly stated above how including the image would be in compliance with the non-free content criteria. Theleftorium: if the episode was truly revolutionary in the graphical development of the show, should not this information be included? If you have problems incorporating it in
701:
I don't have any principal resentment against non-free images. In fact, I've uploaded quite a few of them. However, in this case I think the text is pretty self-explanatory and doesn't need to be illustrated. Plus this sentence is just a tiny piece of the whole article. It's not like there's a large
430:
I'm impressed by how much the article has been improved in such short time. It seems ready for GA now, I just have a couple of comments. I see you've removed the cultural references section entirely; I guess this was just as well if you couldn't find anything to provide context. I also like the new
213:
The "Reception" section contains three reviews, the latter two of dubious reliability, leaning more towards blogs than reliable news sources. I know how hard it can be to find reviews of old television shows, but the article really needs some more reliable sources. For the moment, the vast majority
913:
I could probably think of about a dozen things that could be illustrated by screenshots, if the control room image is so objectionable. The article says that Luann Van Houten "was designed to look very similar to
Milhouse". How do you make a grown woman look like a young boy? The text is of little
682:
That's exactly why I suggested it as an image caption. I still don't understand the reluctance to include the image; criterion 6 says a GA should be "Illustrated, if possible, by images...relevant to the topic", and NFCC allow images that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the
1082:
I see no further issues with the article. I do have a query though, but the answer doesn't prevent GA status: 5 of the references are DVD commentaries for the episode. Were there actually 5 separate commentary tracks or was it figured out who said what within a couple commentary tracks? In either
995:
If the second opinion request is re: the image, then I don't think it's inclusion or exclusion should affect GA status. I don't mind whether there is one or not, but to mandate a fair use image is entirely wrong. If one is added though, as long as the rationale is well and appropriate, it's fine.
440:
My only real issue is with the removal of the screen shot. I'm not a big fan of copyright paranoia, so this always irritates me a bit. I always find that a screen shot helps give an immediate association with the episode in question, if chosen correctly. In this case it also helped illustrate the
148:
The language is very poor in places, so as to occasionally impede understanding. An example is the sentence "Gewirtz came into the writers' room to pitch several stories." which is very detached and presents more questions than it answers. I did some copy-editing, but there are still major issues
576:
Ok, that might have been a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the director did say he wanted to make the control room "look the best it had to date", and inserted shadows and back-lighting effects towards this end. I still think it's a detail worth including, since at present there's a lot on the
939:
discussion would be of little help; that page is for discussion of general policy interpretation, not specific cases. As far as I understand, this issue was recently discussed on that page, without much of a consensus being reached. At the same time I don't want to fail an article over what is
914:
help to understand this. Aristotle
Amadopoulos "was designed to look like" Aristotle Onassis. How was this done? Critics were particularly happy about Magic Johnson's appearance, but how was he animated? Etc., etc. None of this can be fully expressed in words, unless you write
686:
If you have some sort of principal resentment against non-free images, then I guess I'll have to respect that. How is this for a compromise: if I insert the picture it will be my editorial decision and my responsibility. Would that be acceptable, or would you remove it?
1042:
The reviewer cannot mandate that an image is included. Serious concerns about the inclusion of this image have been raised. Therefore it would be best if the reviewer abandoned their insistence on the inclusion of this image and passed the article. ––
622:
Surely the animation is an important aspect of an article about, well, animation? Regardless of whether it is revolutionary or not, the animation is just as important a part of an episode as the script. I recently reviewed the article
486:
as the article stood - it served no purpose and was not necessary to illustrate any text. (That's not to say a screenshot couldn't be found from the episode that doesn't, of course). Non-free images should only be included when they
822:
In addition, this is definitely not the first time they have used shadows like this on the show. It's just the first time they did this kind of lightning in Homer's sector at the plant, which is a pretty trivial fact if you ask me.
776:(And not so much on the image) to help that one one-sentence paragraph, see if you can add more that contrasted why they never did add the shadows before or the like. Possibly thinking beyond this one episode might help, I found
780:
that's incomplete but has some general quotes on SNPP's influence that could possibly be helpful). Fixing this one-sentence paragraph is not critical to keeping the image, but it will help avoiding the hanging aspect of it.
806:
because the reader doesn't need an image to understand what "shadows" or "backlighting" are. It's not an important part of the article so it isn't needed to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article
772:
The image page itself needs to be a bit more exacting in its rataionle (it's all boilerplate right now, but should be updated to include that its being used to show the shadows/etc, as well as defining one of the critical
254:
episode there is always a wealth of cultural references to refer to. Furthermore, it is not enough to simply mention the cultural references, but they must also be put in the context of how they relate to the plot
552:
I'm sorry
Lampman, but where did you get the information that this episode was "revolutionary in the graphical development of the show"? There's nothing about this episode's animation that is revolutionary.
958:
The examples you bring up are very minor parts of the article. WP:NFCC says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the
777:
375:
I will put the article on the normal one-week hold, for the writer to get a chance at addressing the issues. What I would really recommend, however, is to put the article up for a
658:
Alright, I've restored the text. But the reason I removed it originally was that you said one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Now the article should meet the GA criteria.
802:
I think you've got this one wrong, Masem. That looks to me like wedging a one-sentence piece of trivia into the article to justify a decorative image. I'd say it still fails
379:, to help improve language and style to the level expected of a Good Article. For an example of a much more complete article, covering an episode from the same period, see
962:"; a sentence is not a "topic". If a whole paragraph or section was about the design of Johnson, for example, then I wouldn't have a problem with adding an image of him.
935:
I cannot in good conscience promote an article with a philosophy that's essentially user-hostile, and a reading of policy that is overly rigid and entirely misguided. A
541:
that screenshot shows that development in a way that couldn't be described in text, then you might have the basis of a rationale for a non-free usage. Otherwise...
595:
No, it doesn't create a problem with 3a because it is not a main aspect of the topic. The animation in this episode looks the same as in any other episode. I also
1058:
I'll do a re-review since it looks like the first reviewer is deferring the decision. If I don't see anything I'll pass it, if I see something I'll note it here.
683:
topic". The visual impression of "shadows and back-lighting effects" in a cartoon is something that's hard for the reader to fully envisage without visual aid.
599:
dislike the idea of adding a non-free image just to illustrate one single sentence that is rather unimportant anyway and can easily be described in words.
905:
867:
860:
Could we just find a different image? I'm sure that there's some content in the article that may require a screenshot far more than the backlighting. -
66:
766:
Theleftorium asked me to look the image over. I don't think there's any problem including the image per NFCC, with the following caveats:
915:
62:
107:
101:
1094:
1069:
1007:
47:
1026:
898:
Actually, to clarify, I did not mean to say that something necessarily required it. Just that if anything did, it wasn't this. -
511:
the main body of the text, simply put it as the image caption with a reference. As far as I can see, there is no imperative that
325:
456:
200:
39:
940:
essentially different philosophies. I will put it up for a second opinion; basically I wash my hands of this issue, per
902:
864:
875:
Actually no, there's nothing in this article that requires a screenshot. Everything is easily conveyed in words.
459:. As for the text about the animation, I removed it because it was only one sentence and didn't fit in anywhere.
135:
899:
861:
166:
1113:
970:
883:
831:
751:
710:
666:
624:
607:
561:
467:
411:
380:
1048:
376:
1023:
812:
542:
500:
403:
Thanks for the review! Scorpion and I will be working on addressing your concerns this coming week.
936:
740:
512:
55:
17:
1108:
965:
949:
878:
826:
746:
730:
705:
692:
661:
632:
602:
586:
556:
520:
462:
446:
406:
388:
90:
918:, which conventional wisdom holds is the minimum to fully express the content of one picture.
1105:
Thank you for reviewing the article! :) No, there was only one commentary for this episode.
1044:
739:
Yes, I would. However, I wouldn't revert your edit. Instead I'd ask for a second opinion at
499:
if GA reviewers are leaning on contributors to break
Knowledge policy in order to pass GAR.
315:
150:
789:
578:
1084:
1059:
1019:
997:
941:
808:
803:
492:
483:
264:
339:
32:
945:
726:
688:
628:
582:
516:
442:
384:
186:
86:
1022:, which this one didn't. As you say though, the prose is 99% of the GA review.
250:
As mentioned above, the "Cultural references" section is far too short. In any
782:
495:, and the onus is on the includer of the material to prove that. I would be
214:
of the sourcing comes from the DVD commentary and a couple of other sources.
1123:
1100:
1075:
1052:
1029:
1013:
980:
953:
908:
893:
870:
841:
817:
793:
761:
734:
720:
696:
676:
636:
617:
590:
571:
547:
524:
505:
477:
450:
421:
392:
94:
533:
that's really a revolutionary development in the history of the show, and
577:
script but hardly anything on the animation, which creates problems with
811:). If I came across that image at random, to be honest I'd remove it.
1018:
And more importantly, as long as it passes all the criteria of
457:
Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Screenshots_of_television_shows
769:
The infobox caption needs to mention the shadows and lighting
725:
So you would object to anyone else inserting the image?
74:
43:
906:
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.
868:
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.
743:or somewhere else. Perhaps we should do that?
8:
324:(images are tagged and non-free images have
431:Magic picture, since it's closer in time.
529:Oh, I assure you I'm not being silly.
7:
1083:case, this article passes as a GA.
515:info be repeated in the main text.
455:I've brought up the image issue on
537:that can be reliably sourced, and
319:, where possible and appropriate.
24:
702:paragraph devoted to the scene.
368:
345:
331:
300:
276:
273:Fair representation without bias
243:
233:
206:
192:
178:
141:
127:
778:this google books search result
151:Knowledge:Layout#Body_sections
1:
369:
346:
332:
301:
277:
244:
234:
207:
193:
179:
142:
128:
1142:
1124:19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1101:19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1076:18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1053:13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
1030:09:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
1014:05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
981:14:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
954:11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
909:18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
894:17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
871:17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
842:14:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
818:12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
794:12:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
762:14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
735:14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
721:13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
697:13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
677:13:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
637:10:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
618:16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
591:15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
572:13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
548:10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
525:04:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
506:15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
478:14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
451:05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
422:22:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
393:04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
95:04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
900:The New Age Retro Hippie
862:The New Age Retro Hippie
117:reasonably well written
625:Treehouse of Horror II
381:Treehouse of Horror II
338:(appropriate use with
497:very concerned indeed
313:It is illustrated by
265:neutral point of view
223:broad in its coverage
326:fair use rationales
1096:Operation Big Bear
1071:Operation Big Bear
1009:Operation Big Bear
482:That image failed
297:No edit wars, etc.
162:factually accurate
18:Talk:Homer Defined
340:suitable captions
1133:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1097:
1091:
1072:
1066:
1010:
1004:
976:
973:
968:
916:a thousand words
889:
886:
881:
837:
834:
829:
786:
757:
754:
749:
716:
713:
708:
672:
669:
664:
613:
610:
605:
567:
564:
559:
473:
470:
465:
417:
414:
409:
372:
371:
349:
348:
335:
334:
304:
303:
280:
279:
247:
246:
237:
236:
210:
209:
196:
195:
187:reliable sources
182:
181:
145:
144:
131:
130:
79:
70:
51:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1117:
1114:
1109:
1099:
1095:
1085:
1074:
1070:
1060:
1040:
1012:
1008:
998:
974:
971:
966:
887:
884:
879:
835:
832:
827:
784:
755:
752:
747:
714:
711:
706:
670:
667:
662:
611:
608:
603:
565:
562:
557:
471:
468:
463:
415:
412:
407:
262:It follows the
230:(major aspects)
60:
37:
31:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1139:
1137:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1093:
1079:
1078:
1068:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1024:Black Kite (t)
1006:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
820:
797:
796:
774:
770:
684:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
550:
435:
434:
433:
432:
425:
424:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
185:(citations to
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
112:
111:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1138:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1112:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1067:
1065:
1064:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1037:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1005:
1003:
1002:
994:
993:
982:
979:
978:
977:
969:
961:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
943:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
917:
912:
911:
910:
907:
904:
901:
897:
896:
895:
892:
891:
890:
882:
874:
873:
872:
869:
866:
863:
859:
858:
843:
840:
839:
838:
830:
821:
819:
816:
815:
810:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
765:
764:
763:
760:
759:
758:
750:
742:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
719:
718:
717:
709:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
674:
673:
665:
638:
634:
630:
626:
621:
620:
619:
616:
615:
614:
606:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
575:
574:
573:
570:
569:
568:
560:
551:
549:
546:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
509:
508:
507:
504:
503:
498:
494:
490:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
475:
474:
466:
458:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
439:
438:
437:
436:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
420:
419:
418:
410:
402:
401:
394:
390:
386:
383:. Good luck!
382:
378:
374:
373:
366:
363:
362:
360:
357:
351:
350:
343:
341:
329:
327:
321:
320:
318:
317:
312:
306:
305:
298:
295:
294:
292:
288:
282:
281:
274:
271:
270:
268:
266:
261:
253:
249:
248:
241:
231:
227:
226:
224:
220:
212:
211:
204:
202:
190:
188:
176:
172:
171:
169:
168:
163:
159:
152:
147:
146:
139:
137:
125:
121:
120:
118:
114:
113:
110:for criteria)
109:
105:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
1107:
1106:
1087:
1086:
1062:
1061:
1041:
1000:
999:
964:
963:
959:
877:
876:
825:
824:
813:
745:
744:
704:
703:
660:
659:
657:
601:
600:
596:
579:criterion 3a
555:
554:
543:
538:
534:
530:
501:
496:
488:
461:
460:
405:
404:
364:
358:
337:
323:
314:
296:
290:
272:
263:
251:
239:
229:
222:
198:
184:
175:(references)
174:
165:
161:
133:
123:
116:
100:
83:
82:
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
1045:Jezhotwells
1038:5th opinion
903:used Ruler!
865:used Ruler!
377:peer review
44:visual edit
814:Black Kite
544:Black Kite
502:Black Kite
167:verifiable
1088:Wizardman
1063:Wizardman
1001:Wizardman
809:WP:NFCC#8
804:WP:NFCC#1
484:WP:NFCC#8
365:Pass/Fail
240:(focused)
84:Reviewer:
27:GA Review
773:moments.
252:Simpsons
1020:WP:NFCC
946:Lampman
942:WP:DGAF
727:Lampman
689:Lampman
629:Lampman
583:Lampman
517:Lampman
513:caption
493:WP:NFCC
489:clearly
443:Lampman
385:Lampman
359:Overall
124:(prose)
87:Lampman
67:history
48:history
34:Article
937:WT:NFC
741:WT:NFC
597:really
316:images
291:stable
289:It is
267:policy
221:It is
160:It is
115:It is
104:review
1118:orium
975:orium
960:topic
888:orium
836:orium
756:orium
715:orium
671:orium
612:orium
566:orium
491:pass
472:orium
416:orium
106:(see
76:Watch
16:<
1115:left
1049:talk
972:left
950:talk
885:left
833:left
785:ASEM
753:left
731:talk
712:left
693:talk
668:left
633:talk
609:left
587:talk
563:left
521:talk
469:left
447:talk
413:left
389:talk
255:etc.
164:and
108:here
91:talk
63:edit
40:edit
1110:The
1027:(c)
967:The
880:The
828:The
748:The
707:The
663:The
604:The
558:The
464:The
408:The
136:MoS
1051:)
952:)
944:.
792:)
781:--
733:)
695:)
635:)
589:)
581:.
539:if
535:if
531:If
523:)
449:)
391:)
367::
361::
344::
336:b
330::
322:a
299::
293:.
275::
269:.
242::
238:b
232::
228:a
225:.
205::
201:OR
197:c
191::
183:b
177::
173:a
170:.
140::
132:b
126::
122:a
119:.
102:GA
93:)
65:|
46:|
42:|
1047:(
948:(
807:(
790:t
788:(
783:M
729:(
691:(
631:(
585:(
519:(
445:(
387:(
342:)
328:)
203:)
199:(
189:)
153:.
138:)
134:(
89:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.