Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Wiggum/archive1

Ralph Wiggum

This article is great. It's well written and easy to read. Covers every aspect of Ralphs behaviour. Has references where needed. Very good article. Jimmmmmmmmm 11:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I'll have a proper look at this when I get home, but here's a couple of simple things I noticed:

Needs references. I can only see two, and they are just external links.
Images need fair use rational.
The 'outcast', 'pixie' and 'paste' links go to dab pages.
The 'Weirdo' link points to a magazine, which isn't correct in that context.
Spelling mistakes: 'bizzare', 'reminicent', 'inadvertantly'.

Icey 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "rationale"? Spelling mistakes are easiest to fix if you fix 'em when you find 'em aren't they? Pedant

CommentOk fixed the spelling but couldn't for the life of me find 'inadvertantly' and I read it three times. If you know where it is fix it please. Fixed the two links to dab pages and unlinked weirdo and outcast. Might add links to wiktionary if you think needed. As for the picture, well I'm not to up on copyright law, especially US copyright law so to prevent me from having to read the whole history can you explain what needs doing, what could be done with the pic? Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"inadvertently" is found in the "Future" section (I found it by just doing a simple, two-second search). It is spelt correctly. --Oldak Quill 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I fixed it:I'm sorry I forgot to comment here that I found it with a simple search. The article needs a through copyedit and referencing. Sandy 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair on the referencing most of this will only be referencable from watching the show. Any episode which are singled out have the link to the Wikipedia article. Don;t really see how this can be reference alot more. There are some subject that won;t have book/internet reference adn will only be known from watching the show. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the Simpsons Archive, for example, here's a page all about Ralph. Icey 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well can that just be added to th e bottom of the page rather than referencing each bit? I'm no expert on this, so if I find pages that are references to whole the page I can stick it a t the bottom rather than reference just on section. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, you should add an in-line reference everywhere that someone is being quoted, vital information is being presented or info that is or might be disputed is present. Ideally, there should also be more than a single source for the entire article too, but you work with what you have. This is probably the most favored method of citing references, so review that page if you need some help with the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's actually a great article as it is at this point, better than most Simpsons character articles Pedant 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; no references, no inline citations (four inline external links is all, which is poor formatting anyway), poor prose quality, and little out-of-universe perspective. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Unreferenced, speculative, etc. Definitely does not represent the best of Wikipedia, IMO. Ori.livneh 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]