Talk:Alt.tv.simpsons/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
On to my suggestions...

History:

• You cite Chris Turner without giving context to who he is. Please add something brief explaining who he is.
  • Done. --Maitch (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception:

• "In a 1994 Life in Hell cartoon Matt Groening implied that he read the newsgroup." Can you specifically include the reference (or "implication")?
  • That line was there before I started working on the article. I haven't read the source and have no clue to what the implication might be. Since I can't verify the source, I guess my only choices are to either leave it or remove it. I'm fine either way. --Maitch (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Eh...I suppose I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep it in. But I'd recommend you try to fix this in the future, or maybe seek someone from the Simpsons Wikiproject who is familiar with the source and have them fix it for you. This would definitely not hold up in an FA review... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have asked on WP:SIMPSONS, WP:COMICS and Life in Hell. I don't really think this article should go to FA. It is too short and based on the sources I have found I can't really take it much further. --Maitch (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Who is John Fiske? Please add context to explain who he is too. Also, what does he say? Since this is a seperate sentence from the next one, I can't tell if that's what Fiske is saying or not...
  • John Fiske does not "say" anything in Leaving Springfield. He is merely mentioned for being the most influtential person, who has discussed this issue. I have tried to clarify this in the text. Is it better now? --Maitch (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This still needs some more work. Right now, this reads like a Fiske statement dropped into the middle of two Sloane statements. Plus, there's nothing really here explaining what exactly Fiske says; only that he has commented on it, which doesn't cut the mustard for me. I'd frankly just recommend dropping the Fiske comment altogether and keeping the Sloane stuff alone, unless you can add more as to what Fiske said in his "Television Culture" work... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have removed it now. You're right. It is confusing to read and doesn't serve much purpose.--Maitch (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stuff you can add:

• This could be an interesting addition, since it illustrates both how over-the-top the newsgroup users can be, and how the writers and producers themselves watch/lampoon the users: This source discusses an instance where Matt X. Cohen deliberately watched alt.tv.simpsons to see the response to a Halloween Simpsons episode. Sure enough, the users were convinced (wrongfully) that the episode disproved a famous theorem by Pierre de Fermat.
  • Interesting source. I threw in another source to tie it all together.--Maitch (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the wording a little bit, let me know if that's Ok with you. I'm glad this is in the article now. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm ok with it.--Maitch (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• That same source above cites Cohen as the man behind the "Worst. Episode. Ever." specifically to parodize those fans. Might be worth tossing that in too.
  • Done. --Maitch (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think it's worth mentioning that the whole "Who Shot Mr. Burns" thing led to tons and tons of Internet speculation on alt.tv.simpsons? There's a source here.
  • I also got a source saying that the most frequent discussions on ats are "Is Smithers Gay" and "Where Is Springfield". I decided to leave them out of the article, because I didn't find it noteworthy. I think this is sort of the same deal. I don't find it necessary, but I can put it in the article if people find it necessary. --Maitch (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's worth a brief mention, even if it's only one sentence in the Discussions section saying, "Among the most frequent topics of discussion are the real-life location of Springfield, the sexuality of Waylon Smithers and identity of the character (before it was revealed) who shot Mr. Burns." Or something like that. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have added Springfield and Smithers. For Who Shot Mr. Burns I tried explaining the background of the story a bit more. Please tell me if I have gone too far. --Maitch (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Everything is addressed now, but I realized there is one major category I overlooked: photos. There are no photos in here, and although I understand an article like this isn't prone to photos, we should have at least one. I would suggest we put a photo of Comic Book Guy in the Relationship with the writers section, and mention in the tagline something about how the writers often use him to satire and respond to the alt.tv.simpsons community. Also, if it possible to take a screenshot of the newsgroup? If so, we should use that one in the lead of the article. Or if not the newsgroup, maybe The Simpsons Archive? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added two images. One where Comic Book Guy sits in front of the computer and logging on to alt.nerd.obsessive and one of the Simpsons archive. I wouldn't know how to make a screenshot of a newsgroup, so I didn't do that. --Maitch (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Great! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Congrats on the pass. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)