Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons (season 5)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 04:07, 29 April 2008.

The Simpsons (season 5)[edit]

Another season of The Simpsons. Personally, I think each of these lists is better than the last. Anyway, it is fully sourced and I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

Haven't noticed it before, but do all the other seasons' infoboxes match the colour of the DVD?
- Yes. I did that because the normal blue/yellow colours clashed with most of the DVD case colours.
"who executive produced 20 episodes this season" → Personal preference, but I don't like the "this season"
- Done
The wikilinks of Region 1, Region 2 and Region 4 all redirect to the same place, DVD region code
- Done
"Several of the shows original writers who had been with the show since the first season left" is repetitive
- Done
""Cape Feare" which was" needs a comma
Done
"hold overs" in the lead, "holdover" in Production
- Done
"Jay Kogen, Wallace Wolodarsky, Sam Simon and Jeff Martin wrote their final episodes for the season four production run" wouldn't this be better placed on the season 4 article?
- Yes, but I figured it would be worth mentioning who had left.
Did Jean and Rice return during this season, or a later season?
- Done
You link to the thirteenth season, but not the first season
- Done
Ref [6] appears mid-sentence
"One-time writers for the season include David Richardson and Bill Canterbury, who received two writing credits." sounds contradictory
- Done
"The season started off with "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" because it guest starred George Harrison." More explaination needed, I think
"but the writers managed to win the argument" how? what argument?
- Done
"TV Shows on DVD.com" in ref [43] should be "TVShowsonDVD.com", all one word. Ref [44] concerns me as much as seeing Amazon on many other articles in that it's a shopping site
- I was concerned about its usage too, but it is the official shop for The Simpsons, and the reference is used for the DVD's special features, not something potentially controversial like sales figures or opinions.

That's all from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Release Dates" header in the DVD table should have had a little d, per WP:HEAD so I changed it. Meets the criteria, and follows MOS, so I Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Good stuff. Although I do think at times it verges on over-detailing certain things, it looks all good to me. After tweaking a weensy bit of grammar myself, the only issue I'd have to bring up is Compared to previously produced episodes, the episode featured several elements that could be described as silly and cartoonish. This was a result of the staff's careless attitude towards the end of season four. The episode ran long which led to the creation of the rake sequence, which became a memorable moment for this episode. Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again.[9]
- Firstly, a source would be great for "silly and cartoonish" - this could be considered POV. If ref 9 at the end of the paragraph does support this, it would be nice to have a secondary source if one's available.
  - Done
- Secondly, "the staff's careless attitude" might need to be reworded. Reading it as it is, I'm not sure if they really just couldn't give a damn, or if they just weren't trying as hard, or any other possibility. What does the commentary say?
  - Done
- I'm taking "the episode ran long" to mean that it went overtime - which led to the creation of the rake sequence? Wouldn't they add in all the extra rakes if the episode ran short? I swear I'd heard that. Am I wrong?
  - I think an IP must have changed that, and we missed it. It's supposed to be short.
- "Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again." Could we lose all of this? This is the kind of over-detail I was talking about. The article's about season 4 as a whole, and shouldn't spend too long highlighting individual episodes. I don't see this serving much of a purpose unless it's supposed to be talking about the staff's "careless attitude", in which case trimming a bit might be nice.
I'll be happy to support with changes made or some kind of reply. —97198 talk 09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made all of the changes. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Looks great! —97198 talk 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Are there any information about ratings? Also, it would be better if this page had a reception section where you could mention some quotes from TV experts; both positive and negative comments if available. --Crzy cheetah 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to remember that this is a fifteen year old season, so there isn't much from reliable sources on the internet. As for ratings info, I probably could try to dig something up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many archives on the internet nowadays, though. Glad to see the ratings section. One more question, for the 86 - 5 episode, you use both "&" and "and" in the writers' column, shouldn't you use a comma instead of the "&" symbol?--Crzy cheetah 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason is that the episode was split into four parts. The first was written by Greg Daniels & Dan McGrath, the second by Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, the third by Bill Canterbury and the fourth by Conan O'Brien. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see, then I would just add a <br /> after Canterbury and remove "and".--Crzy cheetah 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe, but I'd prefer to keep it to three lines rather than four. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I made two minor edits in terms of style. References show not be put in the middle of sentences. They should go after punctuation (commas, full stops, etc.). ISD (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.