Comment: Three images had no fair use rationales, to which I provided to the infobox and Games montage. I removed the cast poster as redundant. It'd be better if we had one of these spoofs. Wiki-newbie21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image of Dan Castellaneta, because the license said it was PD and no source was given. Given the uploader's history with deleted images and the fact that an image of Homer's head can't be PD, it was safe to remove it. The uploader has been notified. --Maitch22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is chock full of original research. Some of the OR is clearly incorrect too. Some examples:
"The Democratic party receives little, if any, screen time, though it seems that they are generally portrayed as underqualified." (OR plus recurring politician character Mayor Quimby is Democratic, and is portrayed as Kennedyesque and corrupt, not underqualified. Quimby means portrayal of Democratic politicans on Simpsons likely to outweigh screentime for portrayal of Republican politicians);
"The Simpsons go several years into the Internet age before acquiring a computer, perhaps reflecting the reluctance to modernize the show's floating timeline." (OR plus acquiring an internet-connected computer has been the crutch crux of a couple of episodes, but has not become part of the standard house setting; also an early Season 1 episode had Homer playing with Bart on a video game console at home);
"Recurring jokes were more prominent in the early seasons of the show" (OR without proof plus it could be argued that recurring jokes have become much more important in later seasons *cough*);
"Since the debut of the show, the term "Smithers" has become a common eponym for a spineless underling." (OR/unsourced plus really?);
"Nevertheless, their rich body of experiences has formed significant character growth." (OR/unsourced plus really?);
"Many [secondary characters] have developed a vast cult following of their own and serve to represent facets of the American society that the show scathingly critiques." (OR/unsourced plus really? "vast cult followings" for who? Milhouse? Principal Skinner? Apu? who? Krusty, Ned and Burns are probably the best known secondary characters but where's the "cult"? and really, many? plus plus "scathingly critiques"???)
Sorry, but OR problems in article mean that I don't think even the article's current "good article" status is justifiable Bwithh02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not OR or another issue but just a sidenote comment....:"Writers on the DVD commentaries have indicated that they often spent more time trying to come up with these sign gags than anything else in the episodes." I think the writers are kidding here guys... unless they're admitting about how they just about gave up trying to make recent season episodes funny... Bwithh02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed all of those OR including the sign gag thing, which I think in any case is to trivial to mention. --Maitch22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting that the renomination was done by User:Bole2 who did not provide a reason for the article's nomination. Hoping that he/she comments on why it was renominated. Gzkn06:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This nomation is troublesome to me. The first citation in the article is for the statement "The Simpsons has also had a significant influence on post-Cold War popular culture" and apparently references Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Documented an Era and Defined a Generation. However, the associated link for that reference points to an announcement of the book's author giving a lecture at a college. Apparently, the book itself was not used as a reference. There are, however, a number of questionable references to self published websites, and fluffy news articles about renewals and such. Reference 27, to Mercator.net, is largely about the the fact that the Simpsons are a subject of academic study; it mentions many books and academic papers by name which also aren't being used as references here. You see where I'm going with this. This article is a good start, but even there were no original research problems, it's still not going to come close to comprehensiveness without looking into the some of the more serious criticism that's been written on the Simpsons. -- Bailey(talk)16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "significant influence on post-Cold War popular culture" is troublesome. I tried to remove it once, but it was put right back in there. I can't however agree with on ref 27 (Mercator.net). The article is not largely about the fact that the Simpsons are a subject of academic study. It is only mentioned in one paragraph in a very long article and isn't the main theme of the article. The rest of the refs consist of news article and interviews, which I still believe to be valid references on Wikipedia. --Maitch12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that's a terrible line - it has a single weak source of little reliability (basically puff copy from an advertisement for a single author talk promoting the author's over-the-top book on the simpsons (the copy even use a google count to assess simpsons cultural impact!!) yet makes an enormous claim which is vague. Even if we accept the sourcing (which we shouldn't), the line is badly put together, and begs several questions. Are we talking about world pop culture, US pop culture or Canadian pop culture or what pop cultures here? What is meant by "significant influence"? The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of South African apartheid can legitimately said to have had "significant influences" on "post Cold War pop culture" too. Is the Simpsons being compared to those events? The grandiose use of "post-Cold War" makes it sound like this. This is not a good article Bwithh16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Simpsons has a good chance to achieve FA status, but the fancruft needs to be cut out. Also, the lead does not flow very well. I'd recommend a rewrite or substantial revision. - Mike | Talk22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples can be found in the first oppose vote above. I would like to see this become an FA someday, but I don't think it's ready yet. And if you look at the talk page of the article, you'll see that this is a premature nom. - Mike | Talk17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of those mentioned in that vote was removed two days before you voted oppose. I know the nomination is premature, but people still has to explain why the article is not FA stadards. I can't fix something I don't know what is. --Maitch21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem is the lead then. It doesn't flow well at all, and I think it could use a rewrite. Drop a message at my talk page, and I'll help if you like. - Mike | Talk05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
