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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Homer Simpson[edit]

A really concise, but good article. It follows the manual of style, is well written and has many reliable references to support its statements. Nominate and support --Hadseys 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was a bit cynical about this at first, since Wikipedia has so many articles about The Simpsons. However, I like the clear and concise tone of the article.--Ianmacm 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support --Hadseys 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well referenced, concise, well written, overall an impressive article. An excellent example of writing about fiction --Brent Ward 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Whilst the article is nicely written, (although not very well sourced), it neglects a vital part of any article about a fictional character:- their real world relevance. The cultural impact of Homer Simpson is tucked away in a short paragraph at the bottom of the article and mainly focuses on lists in which he features. Homer Simpson is one of the most recognisable figures on the planet and has a legitimate and real effect in many places today, for example here are just a very small selection of webpages dicussing Homer Simpson's image [1], [2], [3], [4]. The article needs far more real world relevance from places like this before it is ready for Featured Status.--Jackyd101 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're first link is speculation and original research, so shouldnt be in wikipedia, your second focuses on a secondary character within an episode, the third is intended for comedic value and is more about everybody from springfield instead of just homer, and you're fourth link is merely about the movie, which has only 1 comment so it doesn't really have any "world relevance" --Hadseys
    • You've missed my point - I wasn't giving you links I thought should be included, I was attempting to portray a small sample of the wide range of ways in which the character of Homer Simpson has been interpreted, applied and influenced in the wider world. This aspect of the character is currently missing from the article and without it, the article should not, in my opinion, be a featured article.--Jackyd101 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded the cultural influence section --Hadseys 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been asked to take another look at this, butI'm afraid I still oppose. Although there is now a slightly larger cultural influences section, it is still much smaller than this character deserves. In addition it is laid out in a strange and untidy format with short stubby paragraphs rather than flowing text and the references are improperly formatted. On top of this there are other problems I did not mention above; the personality section still contains a lot of original research and irrelevancies, the sources used are inadequate for a featured article and the new merchandising section is tiny. This piece is a long way from FA quality I'm afraid. It requires a major overhaul and a much greater non-universe input before it can qualify. See this FA on fictional characters with a far less significant impact on culture for some ideas.--Jackyd101 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great article, well done to all contributors! --Ahadland12345 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The whole "personality" section is based off of original research pieced together from episodes. This section should consist of personality traits as described and supported by creators and some sort of analysis (a show this popular and influential certainly has professional analysis on its main character). There are also much better sources available for the subject:

• I've re-written the personality section --Hadseys 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It didn't really address the major concerns I brought up. The "personality" section should not be derived directly from episodes.-Wafulz 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Simpsons and philosophy : the d’oh! of Homer
• Leaving Springfield : the Simpsons and the possibility of oppositional culture
• Watching with The Simpsons : television, parody, and intertextuality

These are just the books in my local library. These types of sources could provide much better insight into the topic- remember that for an article reach FA status, it should use the very best sources available.-Wafulz 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a good starting point.-Wafulz 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • well the episodes are Matt groenings and if thats how he depicts his character who are we to argue?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland12345 (talk • contribs)

• Well you're wrong on a few points:

• The episodes aren't all Matt Groening's since he hasn't written them all
• The characteristics chosen are chosen arbitrarily by editors and don't necessarily assert their importance. Do we really need to know his lifelong dream is to run out in a baseball field in underwear? Or that in one episode his rage saved him from a heart attack? Lots of material here is extremely trivial.
• Lots of the material within "Personality" is the very definition of original research. Things like asserting that he is a borderline kleptomaniac, analysis of his self-confidence, and phrases like "some episodes suggest that Homer's normal functions do not require the use of his brain" are extremely troublesome. These are opinions and original analysis- they are not encyclopedic content.

• Well to be honest, that original research is backed up by the episodes, so quite how it is original is beyond me. And also those 'trivial' things make up aspects of homer as a person—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland12345 (talk • contribs)

• It's original research in that there is secondary analysis coming from editors. It contains personal opinions, and the notability of the material is not established. If we don't apply notability or original research standards, this article is just a rehashing of plot summaries that editors arbitrarily included. Basically, if I wanted to, I could go in and add something that Homer has done in any episode of The Simpsons and claim it is part of his personality. Also, sign your posts.-Wafulz 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context, there is much better material out there. This article currently does not represent the very finest of Wikipedia, and it probably shouldn't even be a Good Article to begin with.-Wafulz 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Definately not representitative of Wikipedia's best work. The referencing is terrible. One section starts with the word Although and the culture section consists of one paragraph. Homer Simpson is definately an article that is WP:FA potential in the future, but not in its current form. Please do not nominate or support an article just because you like its subject - and lets go throught the proper processes before nominating...e.g. WP:PR and WP:GA .....Todd^#661 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC) _{(Sorry if i sounded harsh)}[reply]
• Support well referenced, written well, give me an encyclopedic grasp of the topic, great work --Brendan44 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is unusual for a FAC to produce such strong for and against comments. I did not support the article out of any bias towards The Simpsons, and suspect that the other supporters did not do this either. I like the article, although I agree that the cultural influence section could be expanded. --Ianmacm 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What definitely gives me pause is sentences like this:

"While Homer's stupid antics often upset his family, he has also performed acts that reveal him to be a surprisingly loving father and husband."

The use of value laden words like "stupid" and "surprisingly loving" are not neutral and give the appearance of being the editor's opinion. I would prefer such language be changed. Mattisse 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've gone through this article more than once, and I am unsure if it is going to make it this time around. It needs substantial improvement, and I would dare say a new overall approach to the way the article is handled. An exemplary handling of a fictional character is Felix the Cat. It has a nice real-world perspective, and shows why this character had an impact on the world, not just why it is interesting or some of the comical things the character has done. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written?

• "have come into everyday use" - everyday use where? Uzbekistan? China? Ghana? This is an international encyclopedia. Done
• "The two were wed in a small wedding chapel across the state line,[18] spent their wedding reception alone at a truck stop,[19] (despite an earlier episode having Homer recall a party with lots of guests, alcohol "and a priest", and Marge informing him afterward that it was their wedding) and the rest of their wedding night at Marge's parents' house." - I think this sentence tries to do too much and slips into being a run-on.done
• "so Homer could work at his dream job, pin monkey in a bowling alley" - you don't work at a job. This should say "so Homer could have his dream job as a pin monkey in a bowling alley"done
• "Despite their disadvantages, these common outbursts save Homer from dying of a pent-up rage-induced heart attack." - this statement needs context, like "in one episode" or "after one particular hospital stay" - something like that

• Sentence removed

• In the sentence that begins "While Homer's stupid antics often..." the gerund use in the list of his actions (selling, giving, spearheading, etc...) is incorrect. You actually can word it like that if you preface the list with "Examples include" or some other simple sentence. Otherwise, starting a phrase off with a gerund makes it a dependent clause, and thus should be attached to a sentence.

• Not sure what you mean

• "this, though, but" - redundant and wrong. Either start the sentence off with "although" and ditch the but, or ditch the "though".

• Done. I think

• ", (Which was just them being locked" - ditch the comma and lowercase "which"done
• "his children is not incredibly well but" - well is an adverb. Try a adjective (like "good")done
• "relationship, although" - replace the comma with a semicolon or colon

• Can't find where you mean

• I think in some of the rephrasing, this was changed--Esprit15d 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bart very well he also has" - comma after well

• Can't find where you mean

• "a very popular running gag" - popular to whom? This is an unsubstantiated claim/opinion removed
• "mean Maggie, in one" - replace the comma with a period, capitalize "In". removed as that only happened once
• "asks for his daughter and" - clarify who "his" is removed because homer doesn't automatically assume maggie is his daughter
• "voiced by Dan Castellaneta" - "and he is voiced by Dan Castellaneta"
• "His voice was originally based on that of Walter Matthau." - this is a random fact that doesn't serve to summarize the article which is the point of the lead section.
• "And although he" - not a formal way to start a sentence. Drop "And"
• "stereotypes. He is" replace the period with a colon and lowercase "he"; otherwise it sounds like everything in this paragraph relates to the American stereotype
• "with Homer named" - "with Homer being named"
• "19 April, 1987" - dates should be formatted MONTH DAY, YEAR. And wikilinked accordingly.
• "the shorts compared to" - "the shorts when compared to"
• " usage is not from" - " usage is actually not from"
• After the first instance, Dan Castellaneta only has to be referred to as his last name (not the full name). The same goes for everyone else.
• "(sometimes too quickly)." - rm this, it is too specific
• "From there they spent their wedding reception alone at a truck stop,[19] and the remainder of their wedding night at Marge's parents' house." - rm, too specific (in other words, this would be interesting to a fan, but it's not relevant to Homer's characterization)
• This sentence should start a new paragraph: "After failing to get a job..."
• "According to comments on The Simpsons DVD commentaries " - this sentence is fantastic
• "Homer is prone to emotional outbursts; he is very envious of his neighbors, the Flanders family, and is easily enraged by Bart and strangles him frequently." This is one sentence but covers three entirely different topics. Each of these should probably have its own paragraph. Also, all the information about Homer's relationship with his family should be together in one paragraph.

1b. Comprehensive?

• "However, the features of Homer's character design are not used in other characters." - in what way?

1c. Factually accurate? The more I read, the more the personality section looks like OR and less like the guidelines at WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The biggest offenders are phrases like "Some episodes suggest," "presumably lowering," etc..

1d. Neutral?

• "Partly due to these contradictory attributes, Homer is considered by many to be the greatest comic creation of modern times." - This is a generalized and pretty audacious opinion - which is totally fine. Except that (1) while this opinion is substantiated by the Sunday Times, that is only one source, and one of dubious widespread credibility. I would prefer multiple references, and preferably a more mainstream one. (2) "Considered by many" is the godfather of weasel phrases. The more specifically an opinion is attributed, the better. (3) The fact that this sentence appears in the lead further perturbs me. By nature, sentences in the lead are very pointed, because the explanation is in the article. So, for that, I say it is even more important to find the right balance between being concise, while still being neutral. and lastly (4) He only rates number one on one of the polls in the article, so the claim is tenuous. All said, the sentence should ideally read something like this "Due in part to these contradictory attributes, Homer has been recognized by show fans and media organizations alike as one of the greatest comic creations of modern times."

• Done the re-phrasing. Looking for a better source

• "Homer embodies several" - "Homer was intended to embody several", otherwise, it sounds like Wikipedia believes that Homer embodies the stereotyped, but Wikipedia has no opinions
• " Despite his apparent blue-collar status, he has had a number of remarkable experiences." - Blue collar workers can't have remarkable experiences? This needs to be seriously reworded or deleted.

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:

2a. Concise lead section? In general, the lead is not adequate. The lead is suppose to be an abstract, or summary, of the article. I don't think that someone who read the article's current lead section would come away with a brief overview of the article. Currently it is a personality summary, which is teeters on original research (which several editors have mentioned). Instead it should have about two or three sentences that directly summarize the content to each subheading.

2b. Hierarchical headings? Good here, except for a few things:

• But, I think "cultural influence" isn't the best name for that particular section. Basically it is a list of awards. added much more information
• The subheading Personality should probably be renamed Characterization, as if that isn't what it is, that what it should be.
• The subheading "Biography" should be modeled more after the section called "Appearances" in teh article Jabba the Hutt. This article is featured. Notice the clinical (and not personal or interpretive) way the character events are described. For example: " Han Solo has a confrontation in a Mos Eisley cantina with an alien bounty hunter named Greedo (Paul Blake and Maria De Aragon) that ends with Greedo's death." Very straightforward. Additionally, the events chosen are notable to overall plot development of the character and series, and arranged chronologically. I think the article has improved even since my first reading, and is not all bad. But to quickly demonstrate where it fails, the "Personality section" does not always show an example from the show or from a recognized published reviewer. It just makes a statement like "His relationship with his children is not the best, although he loves his children deeply." Unfortunately, that is not acceptable. In contrast, notice in the Jabba the Hutt article "Jabba the Hutt does show rare moments of charity, however. For instance, in one Expanded Universe story..." Another example "The character is known throughout the Stars Wars universe as a "vile gangster" (and this statement is referenced) Another example: "Science fiction authors Tom and Martha Veitch write that Jabba's body is a "miasmic mass" of flesh that shakes as he laughs." This is how the bulk of the sections should be written.

2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes

2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes

3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?: Yes

4. Appropriate length?:

• I would like to see a section on how this character is merchandized, or something that is more encyclopedic. More topics that make this less of a POV character bio, and more of a out of universe discussion on the character's impact. While this is not a FA, this article is closer to the mark Bugs Bunny.

• I'll try and put together a section on merchandising

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I was the main contributer who helped the page reach GA status and I've recently had doubts that it is still of GA quality, so I definitely oppose FA status. The entire article should be reworked and modelled after Troy McClure. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe that this article is up to par and able to be a featured article. although I noted a couple of minor problems, such as the formatting of two footnotes, these are minor and I still support the article. Karrmann 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good article. Avala 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportBrilliant article Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Right, I've been watching this for a while, to see if the page improved and I'm glad to say it has. But that said, I'm still opposing. I just cleaned up a bunch of things, but there are still some referencing problems. I mean, can an Ebay search and a fansite really be considered reliable sources? Also, I persoanlly think this page could be more comprehensive. I mean, in many people's eyes, Homer is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time, and so his cultural influence could still need some more work. Gran² 16:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.