Talk:When You Dish Upon a Star

Continuity issues

It's worth mentioning in this article that Homer claims he can't read, which is a major problem for the story since he allegedly wrote a screenplay and has been seen reading in past and future episodes. --75.171.147.87 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:When You Dish Upon a Star/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Comment The production part feels somewhat incomplete. Also, to first sentence there is not placed very well (it comes out of nowhere). Nergaal (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more appropriate to be this on hold. I'll see what I can do about the first sentence, but I fail to understand how it is not complete. Ctjf83 collaborate frequently on articles and he listens to the commentaries more than once often, so I'd say everything that could be there is actually there. Qst (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it a little. Qst (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Image:When You Dish Upon a Star.jpg is not low-resolution as it should be per the fair use criteria, so it should be re-sized to only a little bigger than it appears in the article.
• which originally broadcast on November 8, 1998 - "which was".
• damaging the friendship between the three people - can we reword this? It's just really odd and kind of jarring to read.
• Homer convinces them to allow him to be an assistant to them - simply "to be their assistant" would do.
  • I more meant "to allow him to be their assistant". —97198 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems okay as it is, but I will change if really necessary. Qst (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It reads now as "Homer convinces them to be their assistant" - to me, that sounds as if Homer's convincing them to be their own assistants. If the sentence was "Homer convinces them to jump off a cliff", Homer wouldn't be the one jumping off a cliff, they would be. Same thing here, just we're using "to be their assistant" instead. That's why I think we need the "allow him to" in there, if you see where I'm coming from. —97198 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• and soon attempts to pitch a script - he doesn't attempt to pitch it; rather, he does pitch it, right? Change if you agree.
• Maybe use the work screenplay instead of "script", just because it's so broad a term and he's talking specifically about a film.
• the couples house is discovered by Springfield citizens - possessive "couple's".
• however, Springsteen turned down the show - I'd say he didn't turn down the show, but rather "turned down the opportunity to appear in the show".
• Homer's dream is a spoof of Hanna-Barbera's Yogi Bear - anyone who hasn't seen the episode wouldn't know what dream you're talking about; it's not in the plot synopsis. Maybe provide a little context.
  • Having seen the episode, Homer's dream isn't really important to put in the plot. Qst (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I've seen the episode too. I don't mean add it into the plot section, I mean to add in a line in the production section briefly explaining where this happens in the episode, because it isn't in the plot. —97198 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • The thing is, its not exactly appropriate to mention it in the production section, as Homer's dream isn't part of the production of the episode. Qst (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm suggesting something like "The dream Homer has in the beginning of the episode is a spoof of Hanna-Barbera's Yogi Bear" or "Homer's dream is a spoof of Hanna-Barbera's Yogi Bear". Episode articles should be as easy as possible for someone to come along and read (and understand) if they've never seen the episode (or even the show) before. My point is that somebody who came along and read the sentence with just "Homer's dream" would wonder what relevance that had if the dream wasn't mentioned in the plot synopsis. —97198 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
          • • I'm not really understanding this. I understand what you mean, but I don't see how it could go in the production without looking odd. I hate to ask this, but maybe you could it for Ctjf83 and I (as a favour), as you seem to know what you want. Best, Qst (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Homer's time machine drawing contains a Flux capacitor the device from Back to the Future - as above; an unfamiliar reader would be asking where a time machine was mentioned.
  • Its such a minor and short scene in the episode, I don't think it would fit in with the plot without going into excessive detail. Qst (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • As above again; I'm not suggesting you add it to the plot. I'm suggesting you add a brief explanation of the drawing's place in the episode (in the production section) because it isn't in the plot. —97198 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • As above again. Perhaps something like "Homer's time machine drawings included in his screenplay contain a Flux capacitor..." or something. —97198 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• "When You Dish Upon a Star" finished 32nd in the weekly ratings - always spell out ordinal numbers per WP:MOSNUM, so "thirty-second".
  • I've changed it, but changed it back to how it was. All other articles write the numbers in figures, and this backs its up. Qst (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yup, that's fine. A month ago MoS said 32nd would have to have been spelt out.
• the week of November 2-8, 1998 - use an endash (2–8).
• wrote "When You Dish upon a Star" to be "one of the funnier episodes" - doesn't really make sense. How about "wrote that ... was ..."?
• Maybe give a little summary of the reception in the lead to encompass all aspects of the article (it's a little hard to put cultural references in, and the wrter & director for production should do fine as it's hard to add a few production notes without adding a lot). —97198 (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it was entirely appropriate for you to review this article (in the nicest way of saying that) due to another editor expressing a wish to review it. I'll address the other comments soon. Qst (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything done (or at least tweaked to a similar state) unless stated otherwise. Qst (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I tagged the article for review at WP:GAN before whatshisface above did their little thing. And you're the one who asked me to do this anyway ... ? Not sure what your problem is. —97198 (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not sure about you, but I personally wouldn't consider one comment a "review". —97198 (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So I did. Qst (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have bolded further comments in case the sub-bullet thing is getting hard to keep track of. —97198 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [1] Ctjf83Talk 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? —97198 (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's everything. ;) Qst (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, I think so too :) Nice work, I'll promote the article to a GA. —97198 (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologise if my attitude has been a little un-friendly throughout all this. :) Qst (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on When You Dish Upon a Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206232903/http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/simpsons-the-the-complete-10th-season/5056 to http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/simpsons-the-the-complete-10th-season/5056

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)