Talk:Homer to the Max
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homer to the Max article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Homer to the Max has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | Homer to the Max is part of the The Simpsons (season 10) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The hero is broadcasting in Springfield
edit"Homer discovers a television hero with the same name as him is broadcasting in Springfield, and is delighted with the subsequent positive attention he is receiving because of it." I struggle with this sentence. "hero with same name as him"... seems to be less than ideal, but I am not an expert.
How about? "Homer discovers that a television show broadcasting in Springfield, "Police Cops", has a hero named Homer Simpson. The local Homer is delighted with the positive attention he receives because of it."
It still isn't ideal... sinneed (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Qst (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well... yes in the plot section... but not in the lead-in. :) I'll catch it later tonight if you haven't already. Must jet for now. sinneed (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Homer to the Max/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Lead
- Do you think you could expand the lead to explain the full plot, rather than just the first half of the plot, and also more details other than its writer and director. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, everything is fine, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the plot, let me know about that. What else do you want besides writer and director? That is all I've ever put for my other GAs, and other users have put. I'll gladly expand it, if you tell me what else you want :) Ctjf83Talk 02:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldn't get any longer than what you have already changed it to, Ctjf83 (this is a general rule of plot size in the lead). Cheers for the review, Peanut. Qst (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would try add a line about the reception to the lead or change the last line to "The episode was written ..., and received ...". The lead should summarise the entire article per WP:LEAD. At present it only really summaries the "plot" section of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, done. I've added some Nielsen ratings in there, too. I'll clean up the fair use rationale later (I was sure I'd already done that, but it seems I haven't). Qst (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would try add a line about the reception to the lead or change the last line to "The episode was written ..., and received ...". The lead should summarise the entire article per WP:LEAD. At present it only really summaries the "plot" section of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldn't get any longer than what you have already changed it to, Ctjf83 (this is a general rule of plot size in the lead). Cheers for the review, Peanut. Qst (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Short but sweet, so perfect for a GAN. Just fix up the fair use rationale and it will be fine. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Rating problem.
edit"Overall, the episode was received well by critics, earning a Nielsen rating of 8.5." The Nielsen rating is an audience rating, not a critic rating. IMO it should not be here. But it most especially should not be incorrectly cited as a critic rating. If there *IS* a Nielsen rating just for critics, that is great, but I have never heard of it, and the linky does not take me to it. I just noticed that my change was reverted out, and that the reverting editor said that only critic ratings were cited here. That seems not to be the case, which was why I made the change. sinneed (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, why is it ratings shouldn't be included? The number of viewers that watched the episode is very relevant. As well, you seem to have a mistaken view on what thew Nielsen ratings are. They measure the amount of viewers, not their opinions of the episode. Just because it received an above average rating, it does not mean it was well-received. -- Scorpion0422 16:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)