Talk:Homer's Enemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homer's Enemy article.

Article policies
Featured article star Homer's Enemy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Homer's Enemy is part of the "The Simpsons (season 8)" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
TV
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within The Simpsons.

This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Homer's Enemy appeared on The Simpsons Portal as the selected episode from 14 April 2007 to 4 May 2007

Contents

[edit] older entries

This apparently had a negative fan reaction? I thought it was generally considered a fan favourite. DrDisco

When the episode first came out, it was seen by many fans as being an extremely dark episode - how can it not be? Homer's incompetance drives this poor guy insane - but if you look at the capsules at snpp.com or the archives at Alt.Tv.Simpsons you'll find some pretty negative reviews. I highly recommend listening to the DVD commentary for the episode because it is easily one of the best. In it, they talk about the "generation gap", they say the older fans that have been watching since Episode 1 generally dislike the episode and the fans who spent their youth watching the The Simpsons generally like it. -- Scorpion0422 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 316

When Lenny says Homer should have been killed 316 times by his count, is there any significance to this number? I was wondering if there's some hidden trivia behind it.JW 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production

Hm, to tell you the truth I never liked this episode, although I know that puts me in the minority. I was asked to look at the production section to see whether it's more of an analysis section, but I think it's good. It talks about the story's origins and what the writers meant to do with the episode, which goes to the story's origins, indeed its making or production, rather than an after-the-fact Comic Book Guy commentary. The only thing I wonder about is completing this article while leaving the one-time character article Frank Grimes separate. Well, that, and I think "buddies" in the intro is slightly slangy. Reception section is good and well-sourced. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GA Review (currently on hold)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

I am putting this review on hold for now, because only minor changes need to be made. I will pass the article without reservation provided the following things are done:

1 (a). Prose. I am a huge stickler for this on Wikipedia, as you might have noticed from my previous reviews. Here is a list of the following problems I saw with this article:

    • "35 Inductry Way" is a typo
    • "and and gives Milhouse a job" is a typo
    • Every instance of "Grimes'" should be "Grimes's", see Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s
    • Homer Simpson is one of the most popular characters in TV history, yet he embodies many negative characteristics and Grimes, a "real American hero", is seen as the "bad guy" in the episode. is a run on sentence, should be changed to something like "Homer Simpson is one of the most popular characters in TV history, yet he embodies many negative characterics. Grimes, a "real American hero", is seen as the "bad guy" in the episode."
    • Since this show is an American show, I believe the article should favor the American English spellings of words. Hence "favourite" is not acceptable

1 (b). Structure.

    • The side-plot of Bart's factory is kind of just given a sentence at the end of every paragraph concerning the story of Homer and Grimes. Consider starting separate paragraphs for these, or weaving them into the paragraphs concerning Homer's story arc. I don't like the way it reads right now, and I find it very distracting.

2 (b). Inline citations.

    • Citations need to come after punctuation, not before. Do a quick run-through of the article to make sure they're all in the right place.

6 (a). Tagged and captioned.

    • Does the image in the infobox need to be tagged and captioned to be promoted to GA status? I don't know, but I would really like to see it done, if for no other reason than to be thorough and complete.

This is all I have; make these minor changes, and I'll promote the article to GA immediately. I preemptively congratulate you on a job well done, as I can tell that a lot of hard work has gone into the article. Good luck! –King Bee (TC) 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to 1(b), originally, the Bart story was put at the end of the summary, which I disliked because I think it took away from the real ending of the episode (which in my mind is one of the best episode endings). I also generally dislike seperating stories so usually I just try mix them together. The Bart story is pretty minor and it really only needs 2 mentions.
Two mentions, sure, I agree. Bart's story is really minor in that episode. Just try to make them flow better with the paragraphs in which those live. –King Bee (TC) 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'm done implementing your suggestions. -- Scorpion 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done. I'll pass the article now. =) –King Bee (TC) 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in April 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Galena11 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics or Quotation Marks

In First Section, Paragraph 3, the name of the episode is placed in Quotation Marks, yet in Section/Production, Paragraphs 1,2, the episode is formatted in italics. As far as I am aware of, Wikipedia states that episode names should be in Quotation Marks although other WikiProjects such as Doctor Who uniformly use italics. Could someone correct this and inform me of the regulation regarding Simpsons Episodes? Thanks; JameiLei 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes should be used for any episode. The Doctor Who project use italics, but they use it universally so it doesn't really matter. But we use quotes. Gran2 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Quotes is the standard for episode titles on Wikipedia. --Maitch 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Correction, Simpsons also uses italics, as denoted by the Simpsons Style Guide. I'll update it now. JameiLei 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the style guide says "use quotes when referring to a single episode". --Maitch 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Dammit - in that case undo my two edits. Sorry about that. JameiLei 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm pretty sure we know what we're talking, it was us the wrote the style guide ;). Anyway, don't worry about it. Gran2 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User ratings

Ok, let's tackle this here. User ratings are not good. They are not representative samples of viewers, they are subject to vote stacking, they do not help articles. They are not allowed on film pages, why would they be allowed here. One of the other Simpsons editors, User:Maitch, and I have already discussed this, and even he removed them on another page. Let's see, there are 162 votes from TV.com. Last time I checked, The Simpsons brought in millions of viewers. When is the last time you say 162 people represent several million before? They are unencyclopedic, unverifiable figures. Nielsen ratings should be used if you need a statistical number for something. And no Scorpion, it isn't my responsibility to provide the Nielsen Rating, as you seem to think in your edit summary. I'll be happy to put the article up for FAR. The same goes for IMDb.com. That's 145 votes, that's even less that TV.com, and probably consists of the same people voting. Needs correcting. Bignole 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have taken my statement the wrong way. Do you think that I haven't looked for a Nielson rating? I have, and I find it unfair that you decided to criticize me for something I couldn't help. This article passed its FAC and nobody mentioned the ratings at all, so I think that means that nobody besides you minds them. Also, Nielson ratings are not indicative of how good/bad an episode is. -- Scorpion0422 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The subjective nature of how good and bad an episode is left to professional critics, not viewers. We don't put them on film pages. Also, just because it passes an FAC doesn't mean it's perfect. It seemed SandyGeorgia questioned them as well, and she is a well respected reviewer on FACs. Regardless, they aren't representative of viewers. You can't tell me that 140 people summarize the feelings of millions. Bignole 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
And how do the feelings of one critic sumarize the feelings of millions? If the user ratings have to go, then so should statements from any "professionals". -- Scorpion0422 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why you have reviews from many critics. Also, they are paid to give their opinions. There are also fewer critics then there are viewers. There are only 200+ critics on Rottent Tomatoes film review for most films. That's a film, not a television show. Critics are not paid to summarize the feelings of viewers, they are paid to summarize their feelings. Sorry if you don't agree with that, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. There are plenty of others that feel the same way I do about user ratings, so don't think I'm sitting in left field. Professional critics are acceptable, random internet user is not. It's called verifiability. I can verify this critic said this, and that critic said that. I cannot verify any of the users that voted on that episode (regardless of the fact that it doesn't represent the millions of viewers that watched it). Bignole 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We can only add what we have sources for. Again, find some "professional" reviews that the page is missing, and I will gladly add it. -- Scorpion0422 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't my responsibility to find sources for you. I'm only pointing out the problems with what you do have. Your line of thinking is that if we can't find a reliable source for something, then an unreliable one will do for the time being. It doesn't work that way. Bignole 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I have tried my absolute best to find reviews of the episode, with no luck. Please stop criticizing me for things I can not help as I would love to have a long and detailed reception section, but I can only add what I can. The way you are acting, there dozens of sources out there that I am refusing to add, which is not the case. -- Scorpion0422 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't criticized you for anything. You keep making statements that appear as though you want me to find the info for you. I KNOW how hard it is to find that stuff, I've done it twice already, and I'm struggling with a third. It's extremely hard, but I don't think that's a reason to include unreliable stuff, just to fill up a space. Bignole 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The reception section is fine. It probably can't be much longer, considering your efforts, so don't force unreliable non-essential info into it. "...but has since become a favourite among fans who grew up with the show" represents those stats. –Pomte 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that the TV.com ratings represent that? I don't think that small over number represents that at all. Bignole 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I am saying the converse. The article already says it is a fan favorite, so TV.com ratings aren't necessary. –Pomte 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of one time characters

Frank grimes appearance in the list of one time characters page is a bit lacking in references, and the ones that are there simply say "richmond pg 117.", hardly proper format. Can someone who is familiar with the episode and has the DVD commentary add some references and (if applicable) tidy up the section in general? I'd do it myself but I dont have season 8 yet. Cheers. --Simpsons fan 66 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)