# Talk:Saddlesore Galactica

I don't really think that this is suitable material for wikipedia, considering how biased and heavy handed it is against the episode, with no real evidence to suggest such an idea. Consider also, that it was only voted #5 and #2, and yet there are no mentions of this for any other episode? I say get rid of it. Nebuchanezzar 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion was about WHY the article was the worst, I'd agree.  However, the episode invariably comes up in any discussion involving the worst episodes of the Simpsons.  The positions of both the 'worst ever' and the 'not worst ever' should be briefly mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McJeff (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
The supposed invariability of this argument should at least lend itself to a single citation, in which case it should be injected into the prose. Otherwise, the statement can't hardly be considered to be indicative of a commonly-held opinion as it appears to be positioned at the present. Beyond the occasional vitriolic review on the given link, it would appear that the consensus (based upon the average review score of B-) is that this is relatively passable episode that may have been written contemptuously. Perhaps not strong enough criticism to depict this as the worst episode, I'd opine. C. M. Reed 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to chip in.  This episode was pretty bad.  My Simpsons viewing habits were already waning a bit by season 9, but this one pretty much put me off of watching the show at all until they came out with the movie (after which I gave it another chance of about 2 episodes and then gave up again).  Cheers, Tim Long!--69.150.82.58 (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saddlesore Galactica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Claiming this one now. Review to follow. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realise that diving horses were a real sideshow. How sad.

The plot summary feels a smidge longer than it needs to be.
I removed a part about Clinton. I was already considering to remove it since it's really not an important part of the storyline. Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
How many races does Duncan win before the jockeys threaten Homer? The plot section seems inconsistent with the lead.
I can't remember specifically how many, but both the lead and plot says "several" now. Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"The animators found a post card with a picture on it of this horse diving, and they used it as reference while animating the scene of Duncan diving." This doesn't read so well
I'm having trouble rewording this. I made a slight change to the sentence, maybe it's better now? If not perhaps you have some suggestion? :) Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The "analysis" section is great; adds a scholarly note to what would otherwise be just another episode article. I'm wondering whether "Analysis" is too vague a title, though; how about something like "Self-references"? "Use of metafictional devices"? If you disagree, please do not change it; I'm thinking aloud.
Actually that's quite a good idea. I changed it to "Meta-references". Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the terrible critical reception could be made clearer in the lead; I wouldn't worry about a violation of the NPOV when even the positive critics recognise that the episode "was much despised".
I've made some changes. Don't know if it's better though. Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Check your formatting on reference 7
I've used Template:Cite episode so it should be correct. Technically references are not needed when writing about the plot, but since this was in the production section I added it just in case.
Again, thinking aloud, but considering you have some very well-sourced discussion of the metafictional elements of this episode, I wonder if something like Category:Metafictional works may be appropriate. I'm not sure, though.
Yep, good idea. Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a lot to say- another excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Theleftorium (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this, but I'm going to have limited internet access for a few days. I'll be back with you as soon as possible. J Milburn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries at all, I wasn't expecting a review this fast anyway!
Found a few minutes. Looking though again, that footnote is still annoying me, but perfect reference formatting is certainly not a requirement for GA status. This article is very much ready- the fact that this is considered perhaps the worst episode and the fact that it's been mentioned in somewhat scholarly sources really makes it worthwhile. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Theleftorium (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I’m a huge Simpsons fan, and I thought that this age (seasons 11-13) were utter rubbish. 
Despite episodes like Trilogy of Error, you had terrible episodes like Simpson Safari (the warthog as well!) Kill the Aligator and Run (THE ALIGATOR WAS ALIVE THE ENTIRE TIME!!!) Jaws Wired Shut, and plenty of others that were still terrible later on (Co Dependents Day, (I, Annoyed Grunt Bot))
Just a suggestion- maybe it’s worth taking the list that the No Homers Society made of the worst episode.
Just saying. 
Thanks, and if you have suggestions for the worst episode of The Simpsons, reply to this.
Thanks,
CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan  CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there's nothing in the article about Furious D being an obvious nod to Dennis Rodman.  Surely a reliable source is out there confirming something so obvious. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saddlesore Galactica. 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/20120531142032/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070726_180440_10392&page=2 to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070726_180440_10392&page=2
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) 14:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)