Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons/archive1

The Simpsons

The Simpsons is a quality article of Wikipedia and meets all the criteria of a featured article. --DChiuch 08:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the first paragraph is too long it has a couple of places where it can be seperated. In the Production and history of The Simpsons the dates and years aren't in any chronological order. I've only read this far and these two problems are big enough to suggest that you submit the article to peer review Gnangarra 11:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
object there isn't one single reference/footnote that I saw, that's as far as I got. Rlevse 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - No references section. Fieari 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, I note the criteria says that citations should be, in several cases, placed in a references section. As already pointed out, I can't see one. Also, there may be areas where a new peer review may be needed (the last one was September 2005), but I don't feel like investigating myself (although I may notice some anyway at times). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article seems patchy and disorganized, and lacks sources. Weatherman90 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good article with a lot of promise but it needs a references section and it def. needs a peer review before a nomination for featured article status. --Rachel Cakes 10:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object - the article is good, but not FA material; there aren't sources to cite many "Facts". Dee man45 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are major unsupported claims in this piece e.g. The Simpsons are supposed to have had a "huge" influence on post-Cold War popular culture - influence, yes, but "huge"? what evidence is there for "huge" and does this mean only US popular culture? also, what is the evidence that it is such a mark of "definite status" for a celebrity to be featured on the Simpsons. isn't it more likely that most don't see it much more than a novelty and/or a chance for free publicity? Also, the reference to Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in discussing the Flanders is unsupported, bizarre and suggests the person who added that has not really read the Protestant Ethic. Those three instances just from my first 2 minute look. To be more technical about it, these are weasel words and no original research issues. Bwithh 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just on the issue of celebrity voices: while I don't disagree with the lack of citations, I know there is evidence to prove that guest-voicing on The Simpsons *is* unique and important for some artists; for instance: I just recently read an article where Patrick Stewart named his guest appearance on The Simpsons as the single movie/TV project he was most proud of; JKRowling apparently was over the moon when she finally got to appear; and I read right here on Wikipedia that the Thomas Pinchon appearance is the only time his voice has ever been recorded (he could fit in the 'novelty' category, but still...). Also apparently the creator of The Office (don't remember his name offhand) considers The Simpsons to be the best writing in North American comedy and is thrilled with his chance to guest star and write; and it's not a guest appearance, but also, Gwen Stefani's brother left the hit group No Doubt (he was also their main songwriter IIRC) to work on The Simpsons.--Anchoress 04:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Object-This article doesn't quite seem to take the NPOV required by featured articles. It seems to have many weasel words. I would support if it didn't put the show in such a glorifying light. --Kahlfin 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No references and the article is too long. --Maitch 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant object for the following reasons: (1) No references or sources. (2) For featured article status I'd suggest avoiding the bullet-style writing, and there are too many one-sentence paragraphs. (3) I'm reluctant about considering the Halloween episodes completely non-canon, since they are official episodes. Even though events that take place do not affect the continuity of the non-Halloween episodes, the same is true for the majority of non-Halloween episodes.--Fallout boy 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Groening has said in several interviews that the Halloween episodes are non-Canon. I don't have a reference for that though. (He even explained that things like the sound effects used in regular episodes are always realistic - where they relax that rule for Halloween). SteveBaker 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like The Simpsons quite a lot, but my impression has always been that continuity is never an issue in any episode, if a particular storyline is made funnier by violating continuity. Cryptonymius 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object far too long NorseOdin 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For. Doesn't the TV show the Simpsons count as a source for an article the same name?--143.92.1.33 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a circular reference - the evidence you're providing comes from the very thing you're providing evidence for. it's irrational and does nothing to resolve POV/original research issues. Bwithh 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those objecting on the gorunds of missing footnotes/references, I have added a reference section for already existing links. Poulsen 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nominated againBuc 20:11 November 5 2006 (UTC)