Wikipedia:Peer review/The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help to fix up the article before I send it in for WP:FAC. Criticism, suggestions, general help or copy edits, anything will do. With some help from User:Cirt to get some references, and from several others who were nice enough to do some copy editing, I was able to get it to WP:GA status, and I think the article looks nice, but I feel that a peer review would do nicely before I nominate it. Thanks! xihix(talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have glanced over it and will fully read it later. The main image has the caption "The World Trade Center as seen in the episode."; however, the WTC is off to the side of the picture and the Statue of Liberty is the dominant object. In the reception section, it says "Ian Jones and Steve Williams greatly criticized the episode, claiming that it…", but I don't know who Jones and Williams are, nor can I find out as their names are not clickable. "[…]" often begins quotes in the reception section. Why is this necessary? Good job on the article, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ian Jones/Steve Williams citation is not really a very good source, I'd suggest removing it altogether. Instead, you could expand upon Since the release of the season nine DVD box set, the episode has been highlighted out of the other episodes of the season by several newspaper reviewers. - and actually highlight some of the newspaper reviews from these four sources that are just cited at the end of this sentence. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The Ian Jones/Steve Williams ones should stay in my opinion, as Homer's Phobia, an FA that it recommended we use as a template to make articles, uses a quote from the two. xihix(talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it should go. I'm just saying that it should be established why their opinion matters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did not see that it was used on another WP:FA, but I agree with thedemonhog (talk · contribs), and at the least, something should be said about what publication these guys write for. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I see it now says "writers of Off the Telly, " -- that's a good enough change for me, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I looked at Homer's Phobia and decided to just use that. Ok, moving on from this, I'd like more constructive criticism. xihix(talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, requested feedback from relevant WikiProjects

I posted a notice about this peer review at WP:TV, WP:NYC, WP:DOH, WP:COMEDY, and WP:US-TOON. So hopefully you'll get some feedback from some some of those project members. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Saw the note over at WP:US-TOON and thought I'd offer my $0.02. Overall this looks very good, as I expected. I do have a few minor qualms with some wording which you might want to cleanup, I'll list what I can find but I'm not a very careful proofreader so I may have missed some. I highly recommend User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a to help spot some of these things as I have found it immensely helpful.
  • In the lead He is also later successful in removing it, could probably be He is later successful in removing it,
  • In the first paragraph of the plot "however" is used in two consecutive sentences, which doesn't read fluidly for me.
  • Production: Co-executive producer Bill Oakley decided to have the car parked in the plaza of the World Trade Center, which he had visited when construction was complete. Perhaps I'm dense but it's not abundantly clear what construction is complete, I assume this was shortly after the towers were initially completed? Was the plaza built at a different time and he visited then? I'd consider rewording it for clarity.
I know those are a little picky and you may disagree, I'd recommend just checking for general wordiness throughout. I also have a personal preference to have the Reception section before the Cultural References but it's probably best to stick to the same formula used for the other FA eps. Also to comment on the above discussion, the Jones/Williams quote read as overly long to me. I thought the first sentence was the quote and that someone had inserted "Homer discovered his car had been illegally parked between the two World Trade Centre buildings, and then spent the rest of the episode trying to get it back." as some sort of vandalism until I read it more closely. I think it's important to show that not everyone loved the episode but maybe you could use just the first sentence and then explain that they were happy the episode is now rarely shown and that it was the worst season premier. That just seems like it would flow better to me but it's variable by individual style. Good luck! Stardust8212 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually upon further review it seems that Off the Telly accepts reader submissions [1]. I'm not sure if that makes it a RS or not, even if it IS used in Homer's Phobia. Stardust8212 02:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'll fix what you recommended. However, with the Ian Jones/Steve Williams thing, I do not believe that the submission means you get your story published or anything on the site. I really just needed the negative criticism, and I believe if it was already used on a great FA like Homer's Phobia, I might as well just use it. xihix(talk) 05:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

The lead section is almost perfect. The "Plot" section could se a lot more references though, but apart from that it's good. I'd also like to see the "Production" section expanded. I think the "Cultural references" section can become a subsection of "Reception", though that's not essential. More refs always help, especially in the intro. Oh yeah, and the "Further reading" section shouldn't be a subsection of references. The best thing would be to make a level two "Further reading" with two level three subsections — "Books" and "External link".--Phoenix-wiki 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a few things. Plot sections often don't really even need references, but I added two anyway. There's not much to expand in the Production section, as everything that was available is pretty much there. I don't really see how Cultural References would make sense in the Reception.... Also, I don't see how more references would be necessary, when everything is already referenced. And, references in lead are usually a no-no, as whatever is in the lead is usually in the rest of the prose. I'm not sure about the Further Reading section, as Cirt did that, but I'll see what he says. xihix(talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, made Further reading its own level subsection, as per above comment. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Semi-automatic peer review
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd strongly suggest working on all the points from the semi-automatic peer review as well, and also noting what changes you've made in response to those points, here below. Cirt (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • I believe the points on the semi automatic peer review have already been addressed. I might work on copy editing a little, but otherwise, I think it's fine. xihix(talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you check there are just one or two minor points from the semi-automatic peer review that are still valid and could be fixed. I may work on these if I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Points from the Semi-automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  2. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  3. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  4. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placed here above for reference, I'll note comments on these points, and/or fix/address them. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Responses to points from Semi-auto peer review
  1.  Done - The lead is already of an appropriate length and is comparable to other WP:FA articles on episodes of The Simpsons. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Done - Did a look through the article, could find no instances of this, must have been fixed already by another user. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3.  Done - Went through the article and removed some of these minor awkward wording instances - the article reads better/more succinct without them. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  4. We will make sure that the article undergoes some more copyediting, and continue to work on wording and other areas in order to satisfy the WP:FA criteria. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_City_of_New_York_vs._Homer_Simpson/archive1&oldid=1138566062"