Talk:Friendship Is Magic (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a reviewer thought My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes "Friendship Is Magic" "fly off the rails in an orgy of oddly Spielbergian effects and philosophizing" during their climax? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Immortality in fiction

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 13:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, well cited. Awesome hook, directly cited. GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Modified ALT0 to T:DYK/P4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friendship Is Magic (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Friendship Is Magic (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic) in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. | Remember, Imurmate (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
· · ·

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	None.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	None.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	None.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	None.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	None.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	None.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	None.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	None.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	None.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done, this article is ready to go for GA status. This article seems like it is almost compliant, although I would recommend to do the Plot section in table format (like this article, however the Plot section is organized into 2 "Part"s so it seems like there is no need for it.

• @I'ma editor2022: Hmm... I'm not seeing any parenthetical referencing. Can you specify where? Pamzeis (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis Hello, sorry for that. I just edited it this (where I'm at) morning... thought I saw it... probably remembered incorrectly and assumed that you used parenthetical referencing from the short citations that you used in the Footnotes section. Don't worry, I changed it. However, the article do have short citations, which should be seperated from Full citations. See WP:CITESHORT for more infomation and clarification (or this link, which I highlighted specific words). Also, you would want to keep it consistent with the citation method you use, as per MOS:NOTES, so please change it to either full citations, or keep all citations short citations. | Remember, Imurmate (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: Per the GA criteria, [u]sing consistent formatting ... is not required (emphasis in original). Anyways, it is completely fine to use both the short and the long method, from my experience. Changing the citation style would violate WP:CITEVAR. I'd hate to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF, but many featured articles, such as The Empire Strikes Back, use this without any problem. And re your comment about putting the plot summaries in tables, per MOS:TVPLOT, the summaries need to be prose. Pamzeis (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry for replying a bit late, but thank you for responding so quickly.

• In response to the quotation provided about the citations, it may not be a requirement for GA status, however it is a guideline according to the WP:CITESHORT referenced earlier for references. According to it "short citations...are [not] listed in a separate 'References' section [while full citations are]." Please read it, and yes it is fine to use both short and long, but you have to keep them seperated.

  I think you're misunderstanding. WP:CITESHORT says that short citations should be separated from the full citations that they're used together with (e.g. "Begin 2015, p. 83." should be separated from "Begin, Mary Jane (October 13, 2015). My Little Pony: The Art of Equestria. Abrams Books. ISBN 978-1-419-71577-8.")

• Second-ly! Changing the citation style would not violate WP:CITEVAR because, it states , "Editors should not... change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference." (emphasis added). The change needed isn't a personal preference, but according to the guidlines (ok, I prefer it a little:).
• Thirdly! Could you display multiple featured articles as [citation is needed]? And, also thank you for suggesting that article! Unless you have any prostestations, I will change that.

  I have no idea what you mean by this

• Lastly, I don't understand your last comments about prose. MOS:TVPLOT states "should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}}". Having a template still makes it prose. One example of this is Cobra Kai (season 2) an article which I reviewed before. But! | Remember, Imurmate (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for being a bitvery blunt, but did you read the section? It seems like you're just cherry-picking quotes. For example, the bit that you quoted says: For main series articles, plot summaries ... should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}. (emphasis mine) Unless I'm missing something important, this is not a main series article. OK, wait lemme calm down...

  So here's the relevant part: Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. (emphasis in original) OK, now that we're (hopefully) on the same page with which part of MOS:TVPLOT we're talking about, let's discuss prose... WP:RPS explains what prose is, and it's a lot better at doing it than me, so I'm... not going to explain. Yes, having a template can still make something prose but having a table makes it not-prose. Cobra Kai (season 2) isn't a particularly good example for the subject matter, given it is a season article, not an episode article. Anyways, here's an example I picked out: Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation). It's an FA, and it the plot is split into two parts. No table. Just prose.

  @I'ma editor2022: Replies above Pamzeis (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Hello!

  • Thank you for correcting me about the quote from MOS:TVPlOT. I didn't mean to cherry pick quotes, It was late at night (not to make excuses), and I overlooked when it said "main series article", so just ignore that failed point, and thank you for llinking WP:RPS and a example of a featured article.
  • It seems like I did misunderstand WP:CITESHORT, so you are also right.
  • In my second point, you qouted from WP:CITEVAR, stating that it would violate the guidlines. It would not. I said " Changing the citation style would not violate WP:CITEVAR because, it states , 'Editors should not... change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference.' Were you confused by this? Or was it my thrid point.

  Anyways, it seems like you were right, I was wrong about the short citations and long citations :(. Unless you want to discuss anything more, or there is still a misunderstanding about my second and third (futile) reason, I will say goodbye, untill we meet again |Remember, I'murmate |I'ma editor2022 19:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)