Talk:Clown in the Dumps

	Clown in the Dumps has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 14, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 16, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Simpsons episode "Clown in the Dumps" features an opening sequence by the surrealist animator Don Hertzfeldt?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American / Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance). Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The Simpsons Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge edit Collaboration: Featured topic Drive Copyedit: Merge: Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten Shorten plot synopsis: Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More... Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clown in the Dumps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this started! Give me a few hours to read the article. BenLinus1214^talk 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Is the infobox image really necessary? It doesn't add much to the article. I'm happy for you to try and persuade me otherwise, but is there another screenshot of the episode that would make more sense? Perhaps something from the couch gag, as it is discussed heavily in the article?
  • I included it as it shows the "hook" to the episode that had been reported on for months prior - that a mystery character would die. This "hook" is clearly visible in the poster. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you disagree, I will get rid of the lead image and the portrait of Hertzfeld, and put a still from the sequence into the reception section. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first production paragraph, there's a lot of repetition of the word "confirmed" or "it was confirmed", making the paragraph clunky. Are there synonyms or other sentence constructions you could use?
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You say that "several news outlets suspected that Krusty the Clown would be killed off," yet you have one source. There's a Hollywood Reporter source in the Rolling Stone source that would suffice.
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The Reception section needs some organizational work--I would probably organize it by first stating ratings, then positive reviews, then negative reviews, then Jean's reaction. Also, I think there should be a critical consensus--something along the line of "polarized critical reaction."
• Link to IGN, Paste (magazine).
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead, you mention Jeff Ross, Sarah Silverman, and David Hyde Pierce having guest-starring roles in the episode and yet have no other mention of them in the article. Is there any production info on them?
  • Production notes seem to be a little thin. There's this which seems to have accurate reports in November 2013, but I have no idea how credible the source is. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: The bottom line is that there's some imaging, writing, and organizational work to do before I can pass. I'm not going to put it on hold, but you should address these issues soon. BenLinus1214^talk 23:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. It's much better now. And the image thing makes sense now. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Your edit summaries are indicating that you are not an expert in this field and I will need to explain this to you, unless you want to edit war.

Let's review what this says:

"After the episode "Simpsorama" later on in the season, which implied that Ralph Wiggum would die in 2017, Jean told Entertainment Weekly that he had "learned [his] lesson" from the death of Rabbi Krustofski, therefore there would be no more deaths in the series,[8] apart from Jean's announcement that Sideshow Bob would kill Bart in a "Treehouse of Horror XXVI" segment in 2015.[9]"

The writing, as it is, indicates that either:

a) Jean told EW that there would be no more deaths apart from one more b) Jean told EW that there would be no more deaths, but was dishonest and there was another death

Neither of those are true. It is improper synthesis to link the two. Also, I am not sure if you know, but Treehouse of Horror is not canonical. Characters die over and over, and do not stay dead. In this one, in fact, Bart is resurrected after his "death". To include the clause with reference 9 is improper synthesis, and as well is trivia not to do with the subject of the article.

I will write another edit summary telling you to look at the talk page. Please take heed, and don't go reverting people immediately again. Benjamin K. Stern (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being that I am not an expert in this field and your explanation here makes much more sense than what I got from your edit summaries, I will not challenge it further. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]