Talk:Last Exit to Springfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Last Exit to Springfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject The Simpsons, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also our guide to sources.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within The Simpsons.
Tasks you can do: Here are some tasks you can do: edit Copyedit: Merge: Fat Tony→ Springfield Mafia (Discuss first) Cleanup: A Star is Born-Again, All's Fair in Oven War, Bart the Murderer, Bouvier family, Conan O'Brien, Futurama/Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis, Kill Gil: Vols. 1 & 2, Ned Flanders, Politics in The Simpsons, Pranksta Rap, Rod and Todd Flanders, Springfield's state, The Simpsons Road Rage, Treehouse of Horror XI Reference: Bart Simpson, Bart the Genius, Bongo Comics, Broadcasting of The Simpsons, Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Comic Book Guy, Homer's Odyssey, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, Joshua Sternin, Lona Williams, Montgomery Burns, Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror, Phil Hartman, Rainier Wolfcastle, Ricky Gervais, Springfield Elementary School students, Steve O'Donnell The Heartbroke Kid, The Itchy and Scratchy Game, Weekend at Burnsie's, World of Springfield Expand: Stubs: Bongo Comics, Al Jean, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, Bart Simpson's Guide to Life, Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Bartman, More...

Last Exit to Springfield has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Last Exit to Springfield has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Gags Per Minute 2 Lisa 3 Failed "good article" nomination 4 Reply to Canadiancaeser 5 GA Review

[edit] Gags Per Minute

I am reviewing some of what are considered the classic episodes of The Simpsons and this one is my favourite, I counted the gags (both lines and visual) in the show. In this episode's 20 min run time I counted 195. Around one every 6 seconds. MitchellStirling 00:45 15 February 2006(UTC)

Interesting apporach you have to choosing a favourite episode. I would to say that this is one of the most entertaining episodes. If possible, I would like to see the list you have created (gags per mintue). --DChiuch 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa

Should it be considered canonical that Lisa plays the guitar in this episode at a highly skilled level? 63.139.174.19 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The prose is comprehensible yes, but it doesn't flow very nicely. The very first sentence in the article sounds disjointed to me: ""Last Exit to Springfield" is the seventeenth episode of The Simpsons' fourth season and it was named the best episode of the show by Entertainment Weekly." You might think about splitting up this sentence into two different sentences; the bit about ET could come at the end of the intro paragraph, for instance. The sentences in the intro are too short for my tastes. It lends to a very halting, very "bullet-point" type read. I don't like it. This article also needs a copyedit; I found missing punctuation in various places. Lastly, consider this sentence: "Burns considers the missed lessons of the past and regrets not listening to the young man 'instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.'" I've seen the episode many a timje, so I know what you're talking about, but seeing as how "the young man" is not mentioned prior to this sentence, this sentence doesn't really make any sense. In the next sentence, there is a reference to "unions," while the paragraph was speaking about "union" before. I say the fails this criterion.

2. Factually accurate?: I give this a pass for this criterion, as there are plenty of sources here, but I would prefer to see them more spread out in the "plot summary" section, rather than having 4 right at the end. It makes me think that each of those four sources verify the last sentence; that's not really what you're going for.

3. Broad in coverage?: Oh yes, definite pass. This is about a TV show, and almost every aspect of it I could think of is covered here. Very nice. I especially love the well-sourced "reception" section.

4. Neutral point of view?: Definite pass. Anything that might be construed as POV is well-sourced.

5. Article stability? As far as I can tell, yes. Pass.

6. Images?: Many nice images, good captions on them. They're all screenshots, so they all meet appropriate fair use criteria. Pass.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

Sorry, but I have to fail this article because I do not think it is well-written enough for it to be a Good Article. Please take a couple of days to reread the prose a few times, and make some appropriate changes. I think this is easily a GA if you can take care of that one criterion. Cheers, –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Canadiancaeser

I'm trying to get the article to FA status (There are episode pages that are FA: Pilot (House) and a MASH episode) and I was cleaning up the sections and tryting to not make them seem like a trivia section. If you can suggest some ways the temptation sentence can be beefed up, I'd love to hear it. -- Scorpion 02:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The MASH episode is named Abyssinia, Henry. I don't know what you mean by beefing it up, but I think it's fine as is. If you want you can add at the beginning "Those making the episode also added symbolism in portraying Mr. Burns...." If you don't have the sentence, be prepared to be asked to lose the picture. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Since Scorpion reviewed mine, I thought I'd return the favor. *blows dust off of my old system*
The "-" indicates that something needs fixing, the "=" indicates that it is of decent quality, and the "+" indicates that it is of great quality, but mind you, this doesn't mean it is perfect. If there is a "~" next to it, that means it is borderline with the next rating. "=~" would be borderline "+" and "=" for example.

1. It is well written.

   a (Prose: The prose, for the most part, is pretty good. However, a few issues. "Homer begins to need to use a bathroom. " sounds funny. The Cultural References is the biggest offender, and needs transitions. Currently, its broken sentences. However, its not so bad that I'd fail or hold it just for this.): Verdict:=
   b (Structure: No problems here. The same as the other Simpson GA): Verdict:+
   c (MoS: I don't see anything wrong.): Verdict: +
   d (Jargon: There's jargon in this article?): Verdict: +

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (References: Good and reliable. The story references are all official, and the links to the sites are what we need.) Verdict:+ :
   b (Inline citations: Everything is in order here.): Verdict:+
   c (Reliable: Good here.): Verdict:+
   d (OR: Good here too.) : Verdict:+

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (Major aspects: I can't think of anything else to add here.): Verdict:+
   b (Focused: Completely.): Verdict: +

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (Fair representation: Well, I'd say so.): Verdict: +
   b (All significant views: Totally, and even then some.): Verdict: ++

5. It is stable.

   (No edit wars; all good here.) Verdict:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (Tagged and captioned: Good good. Extra points for the infinite monkeys link.): Verdict: +
   b (Lack of images does not in itself exclude GA: Perfect balanced amount.): Verdict:+
   c (Non-free images have fair use rationales: Yep yep.): Verdict:+

Overall, quite good. There's no glaring issues, and just a couple things that need to be tinkered with, but I don't have much of a reason not to promote this. Its quite a good article. Congratulations on your new Good Article. Best Wishes, Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).