Jump to content

Talk:The Joy of Sect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Movementarianism)
Featured articleThe Joy of Sect is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starThe Joy of Sect is part of the The Simpsons (season 9) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 30, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 2, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
February 10, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Reviewing for WP:URFA/2020.

  • Does the lead need to be so choppy? I think it's okay to move the last sentence up and create a paragraph. It is not given who the Movementarians are; I assume they're the cult that takes over Springfield, but that should be given in the first sentence then.
  • It is not understood who Bart, Homer, or Marge are in the plot section. There's no wikilinks or descriptions of the characters (simple things like father, mother, son, etc.). What is the Forbidden Barn? We need some descriptions. "she finds Reverend Lovejoy, Ned Flanders, and Groundskeeper Willie"—are these townspeople? who are they? we shouldn't rely on links for everything.
  • Some of the cultural references could be integrated in to the production section.
  • The reception section is troubling. Most sentences never explain what the main view of the critic was, other than it was "highlighted". It is almost formatted like a list (but definitely shouldn't be).
  • FACTnet does not seem to be an appropriate source, nor a lesson plan.
  • fn 8 is missing page numbers.

This seems to be an important episode and has specific sources that allow for a decent article. However, other parts such as the reception section are extremely lacking. It will need work to remain a featured article. Heartfox (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Do you still have concerns about this article? If so, would you like to bring this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: and @Z1720: The errors in the article have not yet been corrected, it has been three years since this comment was published, so it would be better to put it in FAR since the article has aged quite a bit. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have 5 articles at FAR, which is the limit any one editor can nominate at FAR. I can add this to my list but it would take at least a month for me to nominate this. If someone else would like to bring this to FAR, I can help you with that process. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: It's been a month now, now I'm wondering if you'd put it on FAR in case the article is really bad (like this one). But anyway, let me know what you think about it. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • FAR only lets editors post five articles at a time. I am at my limit, and have other articles on my list to nominate. However, if you create an account, you are welcome to nominate this to FAR and probably give a better explanation than me on what this article needs to get back to FA status. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]