Talk:Trash of the Titans

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   ):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• 1 (a) and (b) Prose and Structure :

1. "twenty second" episode? I think you mean "twenty-second" episode. It sounds like the episode is 20 seconds long, and that doesn't seem right.
2. The entire article needs to be copyedited. There are commas everywhere there shouldn't be, and missing where they ought to be.
3. Finally, Moe thinks of a slogan for his campaign: "Can't someone else do it?" --- This is misleading. Homer is the one that says the line, and Moe points out to him that it is a good slogan.
4. After being sworn in to the office, he shows his what he plans to do by singing "the Garbage man can", a parody of "The Candy Man"[3] entitled "The Garbageman Can". --- This sentence needs a lot of work. Try reading it; it's hard.
5. The episode marked the first appearance of Costington's department store who's slogan... --- This contains an unacceptable error of "who's" instead of "whose".
6. The writers claim that the same incident was the basis for the joke in "The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons" where Moe walks onto the stage and, without breaking his stride, walks off. --- I like this information, but doesn't it seem a little non sequitur? I don't know if this belongs in this article or not. I'm just giving you my first reaction to seeing this sentence.
7. "The Garbageman" and an extended "long demo version" were later a part of the album Go Simpsonic with The Simpsons. --- This does not belong in the "reception" section, as far as I can tell.

• 2 (d)
  WP:OR

1. I fear that the plot summary section will be taken as
   original research
   by many, since there are no sources cited there. The rest of the article is well-sourced, try doing the same for the plot summary. Check out some other Simpsons' GAs to see how to take care of it.

Sorry, but I have to fail the article. Since the prose and structure is basically the heart of an article, failing pretty badly there will fail the entire article in my eyes. Consider a copyedit and a rewrite of the plot summary section, then renominate the article for GA status. I can tell that a lot of hard work has gone into this article, so just put in a little more. Good luck, I know you can do it. =) –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed most of errors you higlighted, but some of your suggestions I have not implimented. Your penultimate point I personally disagree with, I do see your point, but as you said is good information, and I think it probably should be kept. As for saying that the plot summary may be considered OR, I will give it a good copy edit, but I really don't think it is. See Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia.

Anyway thankyou very much for your review, I will continue to improve the article, all most of my attention will be on Homer's Phobia which, currently on PR, will soon be up for FAC. Your comments were most welcomed! Gran² 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. As far as Cape Feare is concerned, I would not have passed the article on the original research criterion because the plot summary has no sources. Different editors interpret the GA criteria differently. I'll look at the article again in a couple of days and then make a new decision on whether or not to pass it. Keep up the hard work, and thanks for the thank you! =) –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've given the synopsis a final re-write and used the official site page as a ref, and so I have now re-submitted the page. Gran² 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I was involved in other articles. Good work! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, thanks alot, you really are an extremely helpful editor. Keep up the great work. Gran² 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. If you have other articles that are up on

WP:GAC or that you plan on putting up there that you want me to review or help you work on, let me know. It was a pleasure! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The caption for the screenshot of Patterson walking off stage says it references the "Redd Foxx incident." What incident? I looking up Redd Foxx's page here on WP, and there's no mention of him ever doing something like that. Did he get angry giving a speech like Patterson or something? We need to verify this and I'm curious. PowderedToastMan 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the production section of this article, then you'll see that it is fully verified. Gran² 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! Do I feel stupid, it was right beneath the picture in the Production section! My bad!PowderedToastMan 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He don't worry we all make mistakes sometimes, Happy editing! Gran² 07:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This episode was cut when it was aired on Sky One in the UK; just had a bit of a shock watching the uncut version on the Season 9 DVD. This is the first time I have heard the word "wanker" used in an American show. In the UK and Ireland, it isn't a word that you'd hear on prime time TV as it is considered most profane (far more so than "jerk" or "jerk-off"). Is this worth adding to the trivia? Danny Darko 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is a GA, no trivia please. Wanker isn't offensive in America, it just is here. Sky and C4 just cut every little thing that might be unsuitable for people under 18. That means wanker, bastard, mentions of prostitutes, etc. Gran² 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wankers" was left in for the airing of the episode on Channel 4, 15th April 2008. 88.107.56.53 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very shocked; BBC2 used to cut the word, didn't they? Surely this is notable.

U-Mos (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No. If they get in trouble for it, then it can be included, but until then whether part of episode is left in or not, isn't notable. Gran² 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it has, in the past, been deemed inappropriate enough to censor, quite possibly for the only time in Simpsons history. That must be worth something.

As said, it will only be notable if it receives press coverage. Channel 4 cut stuff from episodes all the time, "Bart Gets Famous", "Krusty Gets Kancelled" and of course "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" which is really the only one worth noting. The fact that one channel, aired the episode pre-watershed without cutting the word wankers from it (a word only really deemed offensive in Britain) is not notable, unless it receives press coverage and/or receives multiple complaints to Ofcom. Unless that happens, what C4 did or did not cut in one airing is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Gran² 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying C4 NOT cutting it is notable, but the fact that BBC2 (and Sky One, apparently) DID. The equivalent of this is mentioned in

U-Mos (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

C4 usually cut a sequence in which a tidal hits the set of Springfield Squares in KGK. Censorship changes are not notable, whatever they are, unless they can be

verified and reported by major press organisations. As far as I can remember, only the fact that until a few months ago TCONYVs.HS hadn't aired on terrestrial TV in the UK was really reported and there for included. If you can find some reliable sources about the use of wankers in this episode, then maybe in can be included, but otherwise it can't. Gran² 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's offensive in Britain when they used the word "wankers" in the episode, but don't British people find the word "fanny" offensive, which in Britain refers to the vagina, which is used in many epsidoes of The Simpsons and the word is never cut in Britain-SCB '92 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I imagining things, or is a reference to Moe being a sex offender also edited from this episode? When Homer goes to city hall to run for sanitation commissioner, the next thing we see is Moe entering and saying "Jeez, there's always a line." I seem to remember a version where the man behind the counter say "Okay but this is where you register as a sex offender" before Moe enters - thus implying Moe is a sex offender.

almost every other Simpson episode article has a list.--Dominik92 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed as part of

• There is a reference that is failing (was named "bbc") and needs to be fixed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a

Fixed. Gran² 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed as part of

At the end of the episode, when a chips bag is released from the moving Springfield and ends on the place where the city used to be (now full of garbage), there's a sad scene in which a Native American sees the chips bag and then the camera goes to his face, showing a tear falling from his eye. This is a reference to this commercial, and it has been mentioned on SNPP. I think we should add it to the article.--Skenar (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it can be

reliably sourced. SNPP is a fansite, so sadly we're not allowed to use it. Gran² 07:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Like Springfield in this episode, the town Ulysses in Kansas was actually moved by about 3 miles in order to avoid paying the debts it had accumulated. Maikel (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few commentators compared this episode to Trump's presidential campaign, pinning a few articles here so I don't forget to write it up:

• http://uproxx.com/media/simpsons-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
• http://www.ymbnews.com/simpsons-episode-perfectly-donald-trump/
• https://thevuepost.com/2016/01/30/donald-trumps-homeresque-presidential-bid/

Alientraveller (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Can someone else do that"? sounds more like a socialist mindset promoting big government rather than individual responsibility.

80.131.51.119 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]