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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

---

Treehouse of Horror (series)[edit]

previous FAC withdrawn

I feel that the article meets the current FAC criteria. It is fully sourced and has improved quite a bit since the last nom. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the point of this to make THOH a featured topic? Ribbet32 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran² 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's just discuss one WP:FAC at a time, topic drive discussions can take place at the relevant WikiProject or topic drive pages. As for that potential idea, it's nice for this topic and could work, but I agree with Gran2 (talk · contribs) that this is probably something that is a long ways off. Cirt (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Support. Very well sourced, well-written. Just one thing, you might want to create a disambiguation page for Treehouse of Horror (moving Treehouse of Horror to Treehouse of Horror (episode)), and add the relevant see also links and such to that page, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of this article and the other articles. Would be easier for those not familiar with Wikipedia navigation. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't think that's necessary because most people who search for "Treehouse of Horror" are likely looking for the episode. People looking for the series would probably look for "Treehouse of Horror episodes". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Something to consider. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• I'm unsure whether it is "very well sourced. Ref 53 led me to a glitzy, tiny black-background lewdly formatted commercial-soaked site where the reviewer, one Dan Iverson, has written things such as: "Plus this sketch was too outright with its satire of the war in Iraq. We understand the purpose of satirizing the state of the war, but they wrote it so heavy-handed that it was like they were ...". The prose is amateurish, it appears to be very opinionated (do we really trust his judgement that the satire was "outright", whatever that means?), and the statement in the WP article this is used to back up—well, it's that the standard of the later episodes declined. I'm not sure I believe it from this reference. 1c Tony (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • IGN is a very useful site and is known for their reviews. Just because this one happens to be poorly written is not our fault. The reason it is used as a source is because of this quote: "Unfortunately like the past few years, this Treehouse episode isn't up to the quality that was started so many years back - if you need proof, just look at the sketches that we compiled on our list of the Top 10 Segments from The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejoinder: well, you assert that it's "very useful", but the quality of the prose does detract from its credibility. It's that and the fact it contains several highly opinionated, possibly contentious statements that are neither referenced (I guess I wouldn't expect that), nor supported by example or a more detailed argument. My problem is that by using a dodgy source, even one that is "known for their reviews" (among whom, I wonder), WP can be endorsing what might turn out to be falsehoods, or assumptions that are later overturned. It's a slippery slope. All I'm asking is that you re-examine your references to ensure that they are worth inserting and do reliably support the apposite statements. Tony (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did google searches of several different reliable sources, and I can't find anything other than reviews of individual episodes that say that specific episode is no good, but nothing that mentions the decline of the entire group. I think the quality decline should be noted as most fans will tell you that the last 9 are nowhere near as good as the first 9. IGN is a reliable source and it's reviews are used on several FAs, and it's really not our fault that this particular review happens to not be perfectly written. It's still a reliable source, and the decline in quality really isn't just the POV of one reviewer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- "Considered non-canon, they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show and completely abandon any pretense of being realistic." -- Forgive me if I missed something, but it appears that this info is only stated in the Lead/Intro, and not later in the article. Though this may seem obvious to Simpsons fans, is there a source backing this up? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, now there's no ambiguity there, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Dead links check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two dead links have been replaced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good. 1a seem to be the only issue.

• "There are currently 18" isn't as of 2007 better?  Done
• "category, but it ultimately lost." why ultimately?
  • because ultimately lost sounds better.
• "four parts: an opening and Halloween-themed version of the credits as well as three segments" what is the diffrence between a part and a segments.
  • I'm not sure I understand your concern. There are four seperate parts of an episode (or acts), the first one is the opening, the final three are segments. They are simply described as parts for that sentence.
    • Why is the opening a "part" while the other three are "segments"? Buc (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The opening is not described as a part. They are just described as parts for that segment, because it is important to explain that there are four completely distinct parts to the episodes.
• "The wraparounds were abandoned after a few years because eventually, the amount of airtime for an episode was lessened and there was not enough room for them." Awkward wording. Don't like the use of abandoned, eventually, lessened and room.  Done
• Traits might be a better section title than Traditions
  • The producers on the commentary refer to them as traditions, so that's the word the article uses.
    • Need to say this then. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not really, a trait is more of a characteristic of something, while as a tradition is a conscious effort to bring something back every year, so I think tradition fits better.
• "opens with a special introductory segment" why special? also now it's a segment but before it was a part.
  • It's special because it is different from the normal sequence.
    • How is it different? Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Scary names" why a quotation marks and isn't "Credits" a better title.
  • No, because they are referred to as "scary names" by the producers and the reason it is in quotations is because it is a rather loose description (very few are actually scary) and itindicates that it is not the official name.
    • Need to say this then. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Treehouse of Horror V" is considered the best episode by several critics" needs ref.
  • Further on down the sentence, there are several specific examples, all of which have citations.
• The bit about the IGN list seem a bit redundent. All it's saying is there was a top ten and this is what it was.
• Over linking of the individual episodes thoughout I think.
  • They are linked so as to help remind people what episode it each example is talking about. All of them are similarily titled and it would be difficult for non-fans to know specifically what episode is being described, so if people say "which one is Treehouse of Horror VI?", there is a link right there and they don't have to search the article.
    • Yes this is a reason to link them all at least once but no more than that. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Awards section. Put the stuff about awards they've won before the stuff about nominations.
  • The Emmys go first, because they are the most major award for television programs.
    • This is POV. I've also just noticed Primetime Emmy Awards is linked twice. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also in the Awards section lose the stuff about them not winning. Clearly if it's saying they were only nominated they didn't win it.  Done
• "However, the award went to an episode of Pinky & The Brain." nothing to do with the Treehouse of Horror series.
  • It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A better when to information people of related info is through links to other articles. In this case this link would work.

Support - I looked over it, and it's very well written and referenced. Good job! xihix(talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes are needed. I'm a little concerned with the sourcing of the DVD commentaries; are there transcripts available online? A fair use rationale is needed for each image, each time it is used in each article. I'm a little concerned with two screenshot images (the top one and the one of Bart and Lisa in the treehouse), as they seem to be decoration. From the Fair use page for acceptable images, Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. However, they don't seem to fit that. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-breaking space means it should be 2 minutes, not 2 minutes (view that in the editing window). Also, em-dashes are — instead of - (again, see in edit window). It should be 20–22 minutes. I suppose that's fine about the commentaries; after all, the words straight from the creators are pretty reliable. Regarding the images, though, you need a better fair use rationale for each one used in the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done and  Done (I think) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very encyclopedic and informative :) --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's about time! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:08, 17 January 2008 (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.