# Talk:Clown in the Dumps

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)
Let's get this started! Give me a few hours to read the article. BenLinus1214talk 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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. BenLinus1214talk 23:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice. It's much better now. And the image thing makes sense now. Pass. BenLinus1214talk 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

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)

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)