Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

• Y I see no obvious gaps at top level (section headings). I may have questions when reviewing individual sections. -Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

• Y Flows naturally. I thought for a few seconds about the placement of section "Cultural references" and concluded you were right to place it before "Themes" and "reception" in case it explains any items in the latter. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose quality

• Even on a quick skim through I saw many places where the prose needs improvement. I'll comment on items in "Plot" and leave you to find and improve the rest - if I got into copyediting the whole article I'd be too involved. I suggest you work through the exercises at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), skipping the MOS-specific section. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot

• "Following Bart's prank of having churchgoers sing the hymn "In the Garden of Eden" by "I. Ron Butterfly" (based on "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" by Iron Butterfly), the Rev. Lovejoy forces him and Milhouse (for snitching on Bart) to clean the organ pipes. Bart is indignant at Milhouse, who claims he feared the fate of his soul, and proclaims he believes there is no such thing as a soul" is poor prose, perhaps because you're trying too hard to write long, "literary" sentences, like some Sunday paper "Culture" section pundit. In particluar the parentheses are a giveway. I suggest you build a sequence 1-clause sentences in chronological order, and then work out how best and how much to combine them. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  There are problems in the new version, "During church, Bart pulls a prank by distributing the hymn "In the Garden of Eden" by "I. Ron Butterfly". As punishment, Reverend Lovejoy forces him and Milhouse to clean the organ pipes. Bart is indignant at Milhouse, who claims he feared the fate of his soul."

  • I don't know if ""During church, ..." is standard US idiom but it doesn't work for me, a Brit. Clue: which of the many meanings of "church" is intended? --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "pulls a prank"? Again may be a dialect issue, so if you can provide an example in a reasonably well-written US source I'll consider it. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • [1] Almost 90,000 Google hits. TheLeftorium 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, it's your job to sift that lot for well-written sources - not mine. Otherwise we could all verify statements by citing just a handful of Google Scholar searches (I wish!). --Philcha (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • What is the problem with "pulls a prank", it's a reasonably statement in North America. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Fixed.

  • "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" is not actually a hymn, so "the hymn ..." is misleading. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Fixed.

  • Why does Lovejoy punish Milhouse? Why is Bart indignant at Milhouse? I'd be bewildered if I hadn't read the earlier version. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Expanded.

• "(based on "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" by Iron Butterfly)" is not plot, it explains an allusion, so it needs a ref. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The w-links are just a covert way of asserting that it's Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida". Don't any of the sources about production help? --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It is sourced in the cultural references section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done.
• I think that means the "Iron Butterfly" item in section "Cultural references" is redundant. That would mean sacrificing the sentence "The song lasts for 17 minutes, and Rev. Lovejoy inspects the music and states "Wait a minute - this looks like rock and/or roll" currently in section "Cultural references", but that's just a minor joke about Lovejoy's "don't want to know" prejudice. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• In "Milhouse calls his bluff, and tells Bart he'd like to buy it (in the form of a piece of paper saying "Bart Simpson's soul") for $5", the parentheses are again sign of a problem in the sentence construction. I use parentheses for quickie explanations of essential terms in scientific articles, but they have no place in a narrative. --Philcha (talk)

  Just abut there. How about "agrees to sell his to Milhouse". --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Done.

• You can explain what / who Santa's Little Helper is w/o complicating the sentence. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done
• I don't think it's necessary to wikilink $. In a passage about finance I'd write "US $", but here that precision is unnecessary and "US" is the default in normal language. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done

  Problem no longer exists. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• In "he still finds Itchy & Scratchy cartoons to be funny", it's easy to streamline "to be funny". --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No longer applies.
• I'd wikilink "customer base". Most readers should understand fomr the context, but it's marketing jargon so should be explained or linked on principle (and MOS). --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Re "styled à la Bennigan's and Fuddrucker's":
  • Looks like a comment on an allusion. If so, needs a ref. If those are Moe's exact words, put them in quotes. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If not Moe's exact words, "styled à la " is pretentious and may not be understood by readers whose first language is not English - hell, we now have plenty of editors whose first language is not English, see for example Wikipedia_talk:GAN#Quick_reviews_needed_in_late_July.2C_possible_collaboration_with_WP:SUP --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No longer applies (removed).

  Summarised out of existence, that's fine. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Re "in a surplus fryer from the Navy (specifically from the USS Missouri)":
  • How much of this is the character's words and how much is comment? What did they actually say? The wikilink to USS Missouri (BB-63) looks very like comment, as there were several ships with that name. If comment is present, it needs ref(s). --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you need to be so specific? Would "from a decommissioned US Navy ship" be good enough, or would it miss something important? --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No longer applies (removed).

  Summarised out of existence, that's fine. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• "check" is US English and may not be understood by all readers. The UK English is "bill", but I don't know if that's understood in USA. Could w-link to Bill (payment). --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • No longer applies (removed).
• Re "Bart tries to get his soul back from Milhouse, but he refuses and jacks up the price", who refuses and jacks up the price? (hint) --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.
• "That night, Bart has a nightmare about being the only child in Springfield to not have a soul, and he can't row his boat to a utopia across a large river by himself, while Milhouse gets his soul and Bart's to row for him, and he doesn't have to do anything" is another quart in a pint pot. Hint: what's the least necessary part? --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.
• In " Lisa also taunts Bart with a dinnertime prayer, and he throws food at Lisa, leading him to make a desperate, all-out attempt to get the piece of paper back":
  • Does "also" mean it's part of the same dream, or another dream, or a separate relatively "real-life" incident? --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont' see how "desperate, all-out attempt to get the piece of paper back" relates to the incident with Lisa. "he throws food at Lisa, leading him to make a desperate, all-out attempt ..."??? --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No longer applies (removed).
• In "Moe's surly demeanor and the stress of running a family restaurant by himself ultimately unnerves him, and it is not long before he finally snaps at a little girl":
  • How does "Moe's surly demeanor" unnerve Moe? --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's another quart in a pint pot sentence. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.
• IMO " the visit is in vain; " is superfluous. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• No longer applies (removed).
• Re "Milhouse had traded it", plot summaries are usually present tense and this one conforms. So the pluperfect had is wrong, as the pluperfect represents past relative to a past-tense main clause. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In this case, it is referring to an event in the past (Milhouse tells Bart he traded it, we don't see it happen), so I think that tense works.
• Should explain that Android's Dungeon is the Comic Book Guy's shop. -Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• "tells Bart that he does not have said piece of paper anymore" - "said piece of paper"? --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• "disclose who he sold it to" is ungrammatical. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• In "floating down from above is a piece of paper, with the words "Bart Simpson's soul"" the word order is bass ackwards. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• Re "Lisa had purchased the piece of paper, and while she explains philosophers' opinions on the human soul, Bart maniacally eats it up":
  • "purchased"? It's not Louisiana. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Another inappropriate pluperfect. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's an easier word / clause order. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "maniacally"? Foaming at the mouth? Eyes rolling? Hyper-kinetic? --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
•  Done Re "get even with Martin", how does Martin figure in the story? --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Summarised out of existence, that's fine. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(comment) Plot summaries are the pits - I'd show you how much grief I'm getting over one of mine, but that might be pointy :-)

Despite the meesage I got yestereday, this section alone still has plenty of unresolved issues. I suggest you get a good copyeditor - preferably one who is not a Simpsons fan and therefore will not assume background knowledge. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OKay, I have addressed your comments. This section is a mess of comments, so could you post future concerns in a new one? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Production

• THe sources here all DVD commentry. I'll have to wP:AGF on those. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• There are a few rough phrases, but no setences as contorted as in "Plot". --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Re Daniels could own him forever", in what sense of "own"? --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• Re "a Bart and Lisa episode that "really got to the heart of their relationship"", that's not the impression that I get from the "Plot" section. Perhaps you've trimmed out something that's important from that point of view. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed.
• Re "Weinstein and Oakley did not think it "looked right"" (Moe's missing tooth):
  • Why not? --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This clause is redundant, given what the next sentence says. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed.

Cultural references

• Re "goes on a nighttime trek to retrieve his soul from Milhouse, only to experience a series of unusual encounters", that's not reflected in the "Plot" section. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• See comments in the "Plot" section re Iron Butterfly. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• The citation for "During an argument between Lisa and Bart, Lisa quotes Chilean poet Pablo Neruda ... the joke takes its force in part from the probability that The Simspsons's viewers are not":
  • No need to cite the same source twice. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The citation does not show that this is a chapter (title?) by Koenigsberger in a book compiled / edited by Alberti. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed.

Themes

• Re "Writing in Leaving Springfield, Kurt M. Koenigsberger ...", we don't need a formal introduction every time. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• Re "Don Cupitt, a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge ... simply not tolerated in Britain"
  • Don Cupitt - w-link. The WP article was Google's 3rd hit for him. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • "a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, cites the episode in an article on religion in The Guardian" is just name-dropping. What's the minimum needed to establish Cupitt's credentials? --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Removed.
  • Excessive quotation makes it too long. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Shortened.
• Re "Author M. Keith Booker ... fabricate their mythologies in order to extort money from followers could not be more clear"
  • See this Google search for Booker's significance. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's too long and repetitious. Part of the problem is the long quote - if you summarised that, it would be easy to streamline the rest. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Paraphrased.
  • Don't need the book title as it's in the citation - its presence in the text is more name-dropping. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I like to try to attribute each quote to a source and author, so users will have an easier time finding out.
• Re "Paul Bloom and David Pizarro write in The Psychology of The Simpsons ... personal responsibility and freedom of the will":
  • Similar comments as re ""Author M. Keith Booker ..."
    • Name-dropping. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Author's credentials. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Too long, mainly because of excessive quotation. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Done.
  • "personal responsibility" is a complex philosphical issue and needs a wikilink. I guess Moral responsibility is the best of the selection at Personal responsibility but you should check. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • "freedom of the will" should w-link to Free will. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.
• Re "In Planet Simpson, author Chris Turner quotes ...", guess what:
  • "author Chris Turner" is vague. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • W-link to Chris Turner (author) --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Book title unnecessary, it's in the cite.
    • See above comment.
  • Excessive quotation. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Shortened.
• Re "Mark I. Pinsky and Samuel F. Parvin cite the episode ... their views on the existence of a soul" - the same old same old. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In a lot of these cases, it's necessary to attribute the quotes to an author and a source, which is why the books are mentioned ion the text. I have tries to cut down on the number of quotations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception

• Y Best part of the article. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall impression

This is a seriously good article disfigured by poor prose - and I'm no prose maven. When you copyedit, please make sure refs stay attached ot the items they're meant to support.

If you disagree with my comments, you can request a 2nd opinion at WT:GAN; if so, you'll need to wikilink to this review. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Links check

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Use of images

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Responses

Thank you for the above points. I am going to try to address them, I am also trying to get some help from editors to do some copy-editing as it helps to have some fresh eyes. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's always easier to copyedit someone else's text :-/ Philcha (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have over-hauled the plot and production sections. I felt they were both too over-detailed and had too many brackets. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Update - posted requests for copyediting help

Posted a request for additional copyediting help to:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Animation
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

Cirt (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I'll keep watching. However I think you need to make some effort yourself:

• My experience with outside help has not been encouraging, and I suspect most good copyeditors prefer to use their skills on their own topics. For a warm-up you could try User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), skipping the MOS section.
• We can't let this drag on forever - I posted comments on 19 May, 19 days ago.

--Philcha (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • To be fair, we began responding to your comments not long after they were posted. You have been taking a long time to check back, so it's not our fault that this has gone on for so long. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the advice. I will attempt to address the points you have raised above, myself. (Those that have not yet been addressed by other fresh eyes.) Cirt (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through and responded to every point in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Result of review

I've just been told by the nominator that an edit war is in progress and may take some time to resolve. At the nominator's request I am closing this review as a fail since the article is unstable, i.e.fails WP:WIAGA criterion 5. --Philcha (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.