# Talk:Beyond Blunderdome

Can someone familiar with this episode edit the last few sentences?  It isn't clear who 'they' refers to - it looks as if the studio execs swipe the Mad Max car, convince the family (the Simpson family, I suppose) to join them, and win (win what) but I doubt that this is the case. --Badger151 05:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Should this page mention the Shifty Eyed Dog?--Seth Turner 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
EVERY page should mention the Shifty Eyed Dog! But no, there's no reason to mention him. If he were used in many episodes and this happened to be his first appearance, maybe, but he was a one episode joke. Unnotable. 76.11.137.152 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn´t John Travolta a guest star, too? --Simpsonsonwiki (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, although he appeared he was voiced by one of the regular cast members (Dan Castellaneta I think) and not the real John Travolta. Gran2 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got the B.Blunderdome video in Ukrainian but I don't remember any shots when Gibson is holding an Oskar in his hands. Promotional artwork don't show the episode at all...--Anatoliy 024 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'll get a better picture within a day or two. CTJF83Talk 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Take from Ukrainian uk:Поза блискавицею.  Choose one of four.--Anatoliy 024 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I edited this page a few months ago to add a animation 'goof' and now its removed. I just wanted to know if adding something like that was against protocol or anything? Jcrsn (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beyond Blunderdome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


### Lead
First instance of United States should be linked.
Y Done --Maitch (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


### Plot
The 2nd sentence should have how the car was destroyed, as being run in the Springfield harbour.
A plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words per WP:TVPLOT guidelines. The current one is 483 words. I can't go into every detail of the episode. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Some things should be moved to an other paragraph.
The section follows the three act structure of the episode. I don't se why we should break that. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
", run for it" should be changed.  How about "runs away with the film."?
Y Done --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Wording should be changed alot.
Please be more specific. --Maitch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Did myself.  Simple copyediting doesn't make me a main contributor.  ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


### Production and themes
Nothing found.


### Release and reception
Nothing found.


### References
References 4 to 9 could be put into a general reference and distinguished by the timing and a word, like:
### General references
* Scully, Mike (2008). Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". The Simpsons: The Complete Eleventh Season (DVD). 20th Century Fox.
### References
^ Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". Event occurs at 13:01-13:07. 
^ Commentary for "Beyond Blunderdome". Event occurs at 1:49-2:10.

I see. I have made some changes based on your suggestions. However, I used some variation of the Harvard citation style that used the "cite video" template for consistency instead. --Maitch (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me.
I think that archiving reference 16 would be a good idea.
Ref 16 is a real newspaper, so I don't know what you mean by archiving it. --Maitch (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oups, ref 19.  WebCite it.  So I did it, now it's at http://www.webcitation.org/647zrWxCS.  Just put in the archive url and date.  Archived today (Dec 22 2011 | 2011/12/22).


### Discussion
I might of forgot some things, so I'm putting this in 2nd opinion.  ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The current split of references is somehow inconsistent: the shorthand footnotes are interleaved with ordinary references. The DVD comment separated gives the impression of being a primary source. I would suggest to split out the footnotes to a separate section (and possibly switch them to {{sfn}} for ease of access) and provide the references as a simple bullet list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.  Hold for 7 days.  ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have switched the citations to the Harvard style and moved the DVD commentaries below the references, so it does not appear as primary sources. --Maitch (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about the word Bibliography. Otherwise looks better IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed to Sources now. --Maitch (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I would also note that the prose has a room for improvement. Eg., the mention of "George Kennedy Airport" in the last paragraph of Production and themes is split in two sentences without any visible reason and is absolutely disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. Such things are supposed to be eliminated to pass 1a criterion. I hope Ebe123 can take time to look for the similar issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the George Kennedy thing. --Maitch (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Though I didn't dive in detail, overall seems OK to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Pass. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beyond Blunderdome. 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/20111205005708/http://www.dvdbits.com/reviews.asp?id=949 to http://www.dvdbits.com/reviews.asp?id=949
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2000/01/24/simpsons
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) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)