| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a good article
Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
- Comments by Jappalang
- There is a Simpsons-fansite-like feel to the article. Trivia and favorite tropes (e.g. relating Bart's chalkboard opening to another episode, detailed character references like Shatner without critical analysis, etc) are mentioned without any critical sense to them. With what encyclopaedic reason are they highlighted? Had they been critically analyzed or had played a factor in the reception of the show?
- What is so notable about "The opening movie parody lead to the creation of a real website."? If it did not receive any attention from third-party reliable sources, why should it be noted here?
- The Reception could receive a copy-edit (restructuring and rewriting). I am not enamoured with the "gave a score" plus a quotation approach, especially when the pattern is repeated ad nauseam. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- What makes Firefox News a reliable source? What makes the Simpsons Archive a reliable source, especially when they permit free submissions without any editorial control? What makes TV Fanatic and TV Squad (a blog) reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged.
The above are a few issues I spot after taking a gander. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)