Talk:King-Size Homer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Good Article
After edits that I have done to this page, I have nominated King-Size Homer for Good Article. Fr4zer 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article is good enough. The production and cultural reference sections are lists, with very little insight, references need to go directly after punctuation and the lead therefore has little to adequately summarise, but even then something like "Homer tries to become a disabled worker by gaining over 300lbs" should be there. Alientraveller 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have got rid of all bullet points, changed pounds into lbs and done a few other minor edits Fr4zer 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Status: Failed
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- 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):
- Overall:
While the article doesn't have massive, "jump at you" flaws, the significance is somewhat questionable. The length is appropriate, but the references are not. I don't see the need to have this episode promoted to GA status. Had it been a more significant one, it would indeed deserve the spot. This is, however, not the case. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Any article can be promoted to GA. What you have done is not neutral. Alientraveller 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Alientraveller. Not because I nominated the article, but because any article is allowed to become GA if it is actually good enough. Fr4zer 11:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- You have drastically misconstrued my remarks. The article, while being an unimportant event, is not developed. It simply gives a small overview of the episode, while not incorporating such events as Reception and Aftermath, Success, and other various sections which could enhance the article. The current Reception section needs some more elaboration, but is off to a good start. If that is all' that can be retrieved on the article I will reconsider my assessment. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Review (2) - Failed
All in all, I must fail this article once again for the great lack of comprehensiveness it has. The lead section is atrociously small, and does not comply with WP:LEAD. Please view other episode articles such as Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia (both within the Simpsons' cache) on how to model this article. The Critical Reception and Production sections need some expansion. Also sentences such as "The writers of the episode wanted the title of the episode to make Homer sound proud about his weight, so they decided to name the episode "King Size Homer." are colloquial. The article as a whole is written in an overall informal tone, as well. There's still a lot more work to be done before this article can pass GAC. If you feel this assessment has been conducted in error, you may seek a review. NSR77 TC 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kilos
is it really necessary to have the conversion to kilos within the article? If someone wanted to figure it out, couldn't they just google it? Skhatri2005 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)