Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer's Phobia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Homer's Phobia[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while. Originally it was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. And is in the same format as the recently promoted Cape Feare. It is a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come out. Gran² 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support this acticle because it has a lot of detail... and very good article! Nice work! Fr⁴zer 12:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article meets the criteria exceptionally well. It uses proper citation templates, is detailed, is written from a NPOV, its prose is brilliant, features transwiki links, contains appropriate images and has excellent structuring.--Orthologist 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ While I would otherwise support (and not just out of my love for the show or this episode in particular), I don't like the lead at all. The second paragraph should be placed in the body of the article, as the point of the lead is to summate an article; this paragraph is not a summary and its contents are never really mentioned again. I also hate the third paragraph of the "Production" section. It does not have any wikilinking, and the DVD commentary is actually referenced too many times, including twice in the same sentence (which only contains a single clause). In fact, five times within "Production", the same reference is cited twice within a sentence, which is completely unnecessary. If these problems are fixed, I'll gladly change to support. -- Kicking222 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the uneccessary citation and changed the tone a little, and, although I agree with integrating the second paragraph of the lead section to the rest of the article, I can't think of where it should go. Any suggestions?--Orthologist 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked South Korea, and removed another uneccessary citation. I think the lead is fine, I added that part in so that it was longer and I don't see what's wrong with it. If it has to go, then there is no point in intergrating it, just delete it. If it does go then any other ideas as to expand the lead are welcomed. Gran² 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the second paragraph of the lead is important, as it references to previous episodes of the Simpsons and is quite general, stating that the episode was the first to have homosexuality as a centeral issue. It seems it is fine where it is.--Orthologist 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks to great work by Maitch and CanadianCaesar to fix up the lead and section, all problems that you cited have now been fixed. Gran² 04:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about this solution? The lede should summarize the main points of the article. That section wouldn't have to be at the bottom - wasn't sure where to put it. Also, we need to create stubs for any redlinks. MarkBuckles (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above if the paragraph can't be in the lead, I really see no point in it being there at all. And creating stubs to remove redlinks is not the best idea, especially as I can't find any information about them at all, just remove the links. Gran² 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support While I still don't like how often the same source is cited in that one paragraph, the layout of the article is considerably better now, and the lead is much improved. This is an excellent article. -- Kicking222 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think it is wonderful that an article about a single episode is up to such a good standard. It is brilliantly well written, and well referenced. A little short, but I honestly think that much more would ruin it, as I don't think there is much mroe relevent information. Good job. J Milburn 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost forgot to vote. I've looked this article over several times and I am finally satisfied with it. Good job Gran. -- Scorpion 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is excellent work and I can't think of anything to add. --Maitch 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fantastic article, well done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of excellent quality and culturally significant.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.