# Talk:Dumbbell Indemnity

No need to link train, I'm sure everyone knows what one is who would be reading this
However, he decides to watch a movie at a drive-in theater, causing him to be late to the rail tracks. However, Rewordso two sentences in a row do not start with However
However, both of them being unconscious by the fumes of the fire. Fortunately, Barney comes and saves both of them. The bar is, however, - as above suggest "The bar is completely destroyed, although Homer"
Originally, he also had a different title for the episode, called "Mutual of Moemaha".[5] The episode was going to help develop Moe's character in the show more, though the staff did not think it worked until later episodes. -> The episode was originally called "Mutual of Moemaha",[5] and was going to help develop Moe's character, although the staff did not think it would work until later episodes." to remove "also" and combine the sentences for better "flow"
were praised for their efforts - by whom?
Remove link to 1999 and 2000
However, it should be noted that the book was released early 2000, shortly before the Hunt and Azaria filed for divorce - this is mentioned above - "in early 2000", you refer to Helen as "the Hunt" XD
That's about it. Feel free to disagree with anything, page is watchlisted. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the plot section as it was sorta hideous. I still don't think this article is GA-worthy though. The production section for example looks like a bunch of disjointed sentences thrown together (proselist?) and a lot of it lacks context, as in, it mystifies me why these tidbits are important enough to include, other than perhaps to lengthen an otherwise small article. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed some of it. Removed the "praise" stuff cause it doesn't have anything to do with production. And, it was just the producers praising each other, not independent reviews, so it's not exactly noteworthy.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Still not GA. Most of this is sourced from the DVD commentary and it reads as such. Needs more outside sources. Reception section consists of just two mentions: a USA-today article and a comment from an unofficial episode guide, the latter of which I removed. This article is basically a synopsis with padding. I'd fail it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, thankyou for bringing it up. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it disgusting that neither of you gave me a chance to do anything to the article.  I do not blame you, as neither of you regularily seem to review TV GAC's or Simpsons episodes, but this episode is a fine article that does fit the GA standard.  Episodes like these that did not have too much significance other than the basic ones, and do not have much references.  However, with the many episode GA's we have, it has been established that the three main sources we use are enough for the episode to be promoted.  For this reason, I wish for you to review it once more and promote it if you find no faults.  xihix(talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "GA on Hold" template is supposed to allow for the GA nominator to address the GA Reviewer's concerns, and attempt to fix them within seven days.  It looks like in this case the seven day period was not given, and the GA Reviewer simply changed their mind and decided to fail the article instead.  Cirt (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC).
I wasn't the reviewer. I was just offering my recommendation. I think the reviewer took that a bit too much to heart. Why doesn't someone just nominate it again and get a different reviewer? There's no limit on how often you can nominate an article, as far as I know. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not feel like waiting for another review.  I waited for a month and a half for a review, and this happens?  I don't think it's fair at all.  xihix(talk) 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Normal GA practices weren't followed, as Cirt said above, so you could get away with replacing the nom you already made and putting it on hold. Then contact the reviewer (or a new reviewer). That's what I would do. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I put it back on hold.  xihix(talk) 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry i should of given you the time but there's such a huge backlog and some of Equazcion's comments made sense. I understand your frustration of waiting for a review for weeks and having it failed as it's happened to me twice on the SAME article! Talk:Still_Reigning for your reading pleasure, so for that i apologize. Some things such as "In an epilogue we see the Simpson house partially constructed to look like a bar, with the usual patrons of Moe's Tavern inside drinking and playing darts." reads like trivia, second paragraph of Production does the same. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 Done fixed.  xihix(talk) 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Things remain from the original review

he must commit insurance fraud. - he "must", just because he wants money does not mean he "must" commit fraud - he commits it for money, he doesn't have to do it
Director Dominic Polcino and the animators of the episode were praised for their efforts by the other staff members, - Equazcion was right in removing this, the question is when don't the animators get praised after finishing an episode? An episode takes 6 months to make from what i read so i think that everyone will praise each other
where Homer is driving down the cliff and attempts to escape Moe's car, and where the car was sinking. - last bit is awkward and poorly worded
The one sentence "paragraph" of Reception is also awkwardly worded, which is why it was removed in the first place M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I think the first and last sentences of the first production paragraph are kind of awkward-sounding. I'm not even sure what the last sentence is trying to say.  The paragraph reads like a list, only without the bullet points. It's some unrelated points shoved into a paragraph together. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:27, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)
Everything seems to be fixed now.  Regarding the reception thing, I combined it to make it a single paragraph.  It is an important note to leave, as reception from a staff member of a higher title is important, especially if it's a "most favorite" type of thing, which it is.  It isn't awkwordly worded either, unless you are unfamiliar with English or something.  xihix(talk) 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I say again that the first production paragraph is a list of unrelated points crammed into a paragraph. The reception from a staff member isn't noteworthy as reception, and sounds more like an independent trivia item. And the praise in the production section between staff members is also, still, not noteworthy. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:47, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)
They are all related to general production information.  The second paragraph, the praising, is important, as the large praise was evident during the commentary.  I added more information to make it seem so, but I suppose it's not working.  Also, the reception of the SHOW RUNNER, the person who was in charge of the day to day production of everything, is important, especially if it's a "favorite scene from the show" type thing, which again, it is.  Everything that is there is noteworthy.  xihix(talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking A LOT better - pass M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice that the prison bookmobile (old man pushing it, 'How To Tunnel out of Prison' book) resembled Brooks in The Shawshank Redemption?--MartinUK (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a game with this title, and wasn't it the title of the movie Homer was distracted by? Is there any need to mention or link the game to this page or vice versa? 72.189.235.243 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Moe's car resembles a late 1970's Oldsmobile, possibly the 98, because of the taillights on it. Is that important in this article?
77-79 98
A rearview of another car from the same make, model, and years
Moe's Car  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.28.216 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dumbbell Indemnity. 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/20110227093610/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/897/897441p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/897/897441p1.html
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) 14:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)