Deep Space Homer

Deep Space Homer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a third run at FA for this article. Their were supports and an oppose leading to a no-consensus to promote. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I also requested via the WP:GOCE for copy-editing and it was successful. I believe this article is ready for round three.

Note: Notifying @Aoba47:, @FunkMonk:, and @Popcornduff: as they were involved in the second FA run. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FunkMonk

Comments by Popcornduff

Now that I'm thinking about this... I have a foggy memory of rewriting this plot section at some point to get it to a more sensible length - did someone else oppose it? I don't remember. Popcornduff (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornduff: I shortened the plot to 398 words. The trivial information and parody sentences are removed. @Kees08: also opposed. Kees, I have satisfied the CE requests. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08

At a glance it looks a lot better; I will give it a look maybe this weekend. Quick suggestion; I just uploaded two Aldrin photos from 1996, which is relatively close to the 1994 taping date. Maybe use one of those, in addition to or to replace the image of him from 1969? Your call. Kees08 (Talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I am not sure. Doesn't seem right to have other people in the background when the picture is focused on Buzz. Also, this episode is about Buzz's astronaut career and the current photo shows that. Any opinions? AmericanAir88(talk) 20:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, figured it might be weird since he is talking to people. I think it looks okay though, I tried cropping one of them: File:Aldrin at STELLAR Program (ARC-1969-AC96-0232-52) (cropped).jpg. Is that better? Kees08 (Talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: That would be better. Make sure there is alt text. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Prose reads great now. It looked like you wanted me to do the Aldrin photo switch, so I went ahead and made the change. If you preferred the other photo for any reason, feel free to use it instead, I meant it as a suggestion only. Let me know about the one comment above. Kees08 (Talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Photo looks great. As for the code cite, I have honestly never really seen it cited. The code is mentioned in all of the external links as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 12:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked others that have passed and you are right. Supporting. Kees08 (Talk) 16:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I agree with you that the NASA ants portion of the article you deleted should be deleted, in case anyone argues with your removal of content. Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: Thank you. Yeah, it just seemed trivial and had nothing to do with the episode. Also, what is the status on this FAC? There hasn't been a comment in a while. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

  • Since this nomination has attracted four supports, I would recommend that @AmericanAir88: put in a request for an image and a source review here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Out of curiosity, What is the benefit of putting a request there? It seems to take a while and other reviewers have checked the sources and images. If you recall the first run of this, the images were checked. If you recall the second run, sources were checked. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that an image and a source review still need to be done for this FAC as it is a new FAC. To the best of my knowledge, the above link allows anyone interested in doing image/source reviews to locate nominations that are already further along in the process as it can be difficult to tell that from the long list of current FACs. It is just a suggestion though so I am not saying that you have to do it. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

Carlos Baeza directed "Deep Space Homer", and it is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin. - the subject shifts oddly in this sentence. Can be remedied by "Directed by Carlos Baeza, "Deep Space Homer" is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin."

Other than that, nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Done. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

ALT text is so-so; the one in the infobox should probably mention the meme. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain

Recusing from coord duties to take a look here. One of the first things I normally do when an article is relatively short is do a cursory library search to see if any notable sources have been overlooked. In this case, it looks like several academic sources could be used to expand the Production section and even develop a Themes section, since there are several journal articles that (on skimming) look to discuss how this episode plays into the US's culture around the space program. A few are listed below, but you should consult major library databases for a comprehensive list:

I must oppose on 1b and 1c until such time that all major sources are consulted and used. --Laser brain (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for beginning the process. I agree with Serial Number 54129 below that we need to fully explore the scholarship here and determine to what extent the themes of this episode have been discussed. I doubt a fully developed Themes section is avoidable, or that we can hope for comprehensiveness without fully exploring the sources evident in a library search. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: At this time the Themes section feels hastily assembled and I'm not confident the sources were fully explored. I'm looking at them this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

@Laser brain: @Serial Number 54129: Do you want me to add the sources? Some don't seem to benefit the article and some are not even accessible. Also, I would object to a "themes" section. The cultural references adequately talks about various references and themes. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Have you read the Frank Grimes article? Rather than just seen the episode? The article posits an interesting contrast with the usuality of Simpson's existence.
  2. Young Jeen Choe's 'American Myth' is a 22-page article in a blind-peer reviewed academic journal and I have no idea how it could be merely dismissed as a review, let alone a "book".
  3. Again, I must protest tat the 'Return of the...' article is clearly available and spends multiple paragraphs contextualising the episode.
  4. Gilligan's abound subjects the topic to a short, but nuanced discussion, contextualising the episode with the then-contemporary space-race. Any reason you're "hesitant" to add an academic text from a reputable scholarly publisher?
  5. Musolf: Firstly, it's not Musolf, the article is by Katovich and Vaughan, Musolf being the volume's editor. So the reference you have added needs to be adjusted to account. But in any case, one sentence is completely underusing a source which mentions the topic in-depth multiple times and discusses it over several pages at length.
  6. I agree the 'Philosophy' piece is a short discussion, but it makes a useful point as to how Simpson's voyage reflects his familial relationships.

Ask at WP:RX for any sources you have difficulty accessing; whether it's available to you is, unfortunately, irrelevant: you have to thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, not just that which you can find.

Incidentally, something else I forgot to mention that's verging on the essential is Paul Halpern's What's Science Ever Done For Us? ([1]), which discusses—notwithstanding a lightness of approach—the physics behind the story.

You say you don't want a 'Themes' section? But the scholarship is based on drawing out the themes discoverable within the episode, so can hardly be avoided. For example, where you added the factoid regarding Simpson's alcoholism, you added it to the 'Prodction' section: it clearly has nothing to do with production.

Remember that 1b—cited by Laser brain above—is about context, and something as sociologically and culturally impactful as The Simpsons is, whether one cares for it or not, a phenonomon for which discusion has broadened far beyond its fan base. ——SerialNumber54129 11:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Serial Number 54129: I have added some of the books so far which create a "Themes" section. I have an objection the the oppose Laser brought up below. How does it look so far? AmericanAir88(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Laser's oppose: Currently working on the issue. Adding sources

@Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain:, Not every source needs to be in an article. See WP:OVERKILL. Also, see articles like Lisa the Skeptic and You Only Move Twice. Both are Simpsons episodes brought to FA status. I will try to work with you as best as I can to expand the article, but I do not see the benefit in all these sources. Deep Space Homer is well crafted will a great amount of information for readers. If I try to expand the article with miscellaneous information from sources, it may be longer but lacks quality. I am currently working on incorporated these books. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review of Laserbrain's suggestion

@Laser brain:

AmericanAir88(talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain: This is my review of the sources provided. I added one of them so far. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain: I have added three of the books so far. How does it look? AmericanAir88(talk) 15:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

After reading the entire article, I couldn't find a single aspect of the prose I'd suggest changing. I made a couple of changes to the article none-the-less, expanding the references, but aside from that I see no issues with sourcing or source quality. And after reading this FAC, I'm happy with the changes AmericanAir88 has made. The 3 worthwhile academic sources listed above have been incorporated well into the prose, and I concur that the 3 remaining sources have limited scope for inclusion: they do come across as fairly trivial, with references to this particular episode found within them fairly off-the-cuff, to say the least—not much depth to extract. Also couldn't find any additional academic sources worth mining for this article. With all this in mind, I'm happy to support this article for promotion on FAC 1a, b and c. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

I have added the sources from the "Oppose" votes above while leaving out some that I feel will add nothing but miscellaneous content. The users have not responded to my further three pings. Homeostatis07 also strengthens by claim. I am going on vacation soon and while I will still be at my laptop sometimes, I may be at limited availability. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

A greatly entertaining read, well crafted.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Thank you for the help. HI and M are used as Ref 14. Cites 13 and 14 seem to be an issue with the Harv. I fixed the harv refs. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the only one left to consider is Hersch, which I don't see any use of? I looked in a few places where it might be used, but the only unique things in that are the Corvair mention and such, which aren't used. I also clipped down the URLs where the base URL goes directly to the right spot (wish there was a bot that did this). Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Eric Corbett

This article is really not very well written, and thus fails criteria 1a. A few examples:

I want to stress again that these are just a few of the many problems that need to be addressed before this article can be considered worthy of promotion in my view. Eric Corbett 20:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed [most of] these on AmericanAir88's behalf, but would like to point out that it's perfectly acceptable to use "where" in several of the instances above—as in, "Where", i.e., the place or situation in which; "wherein", etc. I don't believe this is enough to violate 1a, and would be curious to know of any additional instances of alleged poor grammar... because I can't see any. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you of what 1a actually says: "its prose must be engaging and of a professional standard"; my contention is that the prose of this article is neither. Allow me to give you just one more example: "... might be capable enough to rule over humanity". Awkward, laboured and clumsy would better describe such phrasing. Eric Corbett 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Corbett: Thank you for the concern and comments. @Homeostasis07: Thank you for the help as well. Eric, I took this article through the GOCE and did several sweeps of the article myself. As the nominator, I cannot tell you if this is enough to violate 1a, but I thank you very much for the concerns. Feel free to address anything else in the article. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The GOCE are what they are, but they're not much use at this level of, what ought to be, a professional standard of writing. Eric Corbett 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "Awkward, laboured and clumsy"... what? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting you or anyone else to agree with me, I'm simply stating my opinion, which I thought was the purpose of a review. It's for the delegates to decide whether or nor to promote, not me, and they may well decide that my objections carry no weight. C'est la vie. Eric Corbett 14:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical: what "purpose" does this serve? And one can easily oppose a nomination without insulting the good folks at GOCE. This is what counts as a "review" these days? C'est la FAC, more like. FFS. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It serves the purpose for which it's intended. And your rather transparent attempt to lure me into providing the odious Sandstein with yet another flimsy excuse to block me by asking does you no credit whatsoever. As for the GOCE, surely any fool can see its limitations? What purpose does your futile attempt to bully me into submission serve? An appearance at FAC invites criticism; if you can't tolerate criticism, don't ask for it. Sadly FAC is becoming a bit of a laughing stock because it is very likely that an inferior product like this nomination - which in the past would have stood no chance whatsoever of being promoted - likely will this time because too many are too afraid to oppose. For shame on you. Eric Corbett 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More