Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Canterlot Wedding/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [1].

---

A Canterlot Wedding

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode. Though it may not be thought to discuss Stalinism or Marxism (cough, "The Cutie Map", cough), critics still think it's awesome and scholars think it discusses feminism. This article was brought to GA-status back in 2012 and I have since expanded its reception and production sections. I nominated it for FA status back in October of last year, but that was archived after over two weeks of absolutely no comments. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The article relies on primary sources such as blog posts from the creator, press releases, and the website of the DVD distributor instead of secondary sources. The NY Daily News is a questionable source. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Pamzeis any response to this comment? (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    I've tried to reduce the reliance on primary sources. Right now, we're at four PR cites; one blog post cite; and one DVD distributor site cite. I'm still unsure if it is sufficient, though. Per RSP, NY Daily News is a reliable source, and it is used for opinion. Pamzeis (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    Courtesy ping to Guerillero. Could you tell me what you think of the sources now? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    I will stand aside. I'm still not thrilled about it --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from O-D

Placeholder; I'll take a look in the next day or two. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: "Additionally, the episodes have been subject to feminist analysis" – I think this needs a bit of elaboration.
  • Expanded

• Suggest adding context to character names when first mentioned in the plot. (E.g. "the unicorn Twilight Strong", "Princess Celestia, the ruler of Canterlot").
  • Added

• I don't think a comment on DeviantArt is a high-quality RS.
  • The comment is from the show's creator, Lauren Faust, and Wired confirms that it is Faust's account here
    • I'm still not sure it's a "high quality" source per FAC criteria. Since it's the only such source, I could be ok with it in the body, but I don't think it's due weight to use it for the lead ("she worked on the story's inception").
      • Removed

• "compared the plot twist to those of the science-fiction television series Fringe" – needs a bit more context to justify why this is in Themes. (The source talks about the plot's darkness.)
  • Removed

• This paper (pdf link on the right) mentions a thematic connection to an earlier MLP episode in p. 11; could be interesting to add.
  • I can't really find anything significant to add... it just says:

    There are many notable narrative and thematic continuities between My Little Pony 'n Friends and MLPFIM, and episodes of the recent series parallel the female-centered nature of the original. ... "A Canterlot Wedding: Part 2" culminates in a battle with a changeling army assuming the uncanny appearance of the six main characters, representing the "substitution of a mechanical double," a theme humorously revisited in "Too Many Pinkie Pies."

    and I have barely any idea what this means. I've googled "substitution of a mechanical double" but there's nothing that I can find that provides more context...
    • I assumed it was something MLP-related, but I guess not. This is the only other scholarly source I could find, so I think the article is comprehensive in that sense.
• The quoted "princess stereotype" does not appear in the source. (Perhaps you meant "princess culture"?)
  • Fixed

• "A Canterlot Wedding" in quotes is a bit confusing when interspersed with quotes from sources (in Themes); suggest replacing some occurrences with "the episodes".
  • I've replaced the second instance as the first doesn't seem like that much of a problem. IDK about "This Day Aria" though

• "triple-digit and quadruple-digit year-to-year delivery gains" – without further context, it's unclear why both of these are mentioned (rather than just quadruple-digit).
  • Revised

• "As of November 2013, it has drawn" – should probably be "had drawn".
  • Not a grammar guru but I think it's correct as, per the WP article, it is "used to express a past event that has present consequences" as opposed to "an action that occurred prior to an aforementioned time in the past"
    • Unless I'm mistaken, the source is taking about viewership until 2013, not after 2013. How about the simpler "As of November 2013, it was the most viewed program on the Hub"?
      • I think it's the viewership of the original airing, not anything after, like re-runs, etc. I don't think it should be "was" because that, at least to me, implies something surpassed it, which is unconfirmed...

• "considering it to be one of the reasons she felt Friendship Is Magic was one of the best children's programs" – the "one of"s feel a bit repetitive.
  • Fixed

• "commended the episodes' ambition, complexity, captivation, and enjoyability" – captivation feels out of place. (Perhaps "commended the episodes' ambition and complexity, finding them enjoyable and captivating".)
  • Revised

• "The Friendship Is Magic fandom initially chastised..." – reading this sentence, it sounds like they chastised this episode but later changed their minds. Needs clarification.
  • Revised

• When combining comments from multiple critics, I'm not sure if you can use quotes without individual attribution. Also, in lines like "The episodes' music also garnered critical praise, having been called "one of the best things about this show" and "just breathtaking".[13][19]", the two quoted critics are actually mentioned by name later. Suggest either summarizing these statements or attributing.
  • Revised
    • I meant that quotes like "one of the best things about this show" should be attributed by name to the specific critic (or magazine) who made that statement.
      • Revised
        • Some more occurrences: "surprisingly complex"; the "biggest, most expensive, action-packed ... episode ever"; the "bouncy and fun, filled with real joy and heart" wedding
          • @Olivaw-Daneel: Ooo, I think this one gets a bit messy, because there are two quotes from Daily News. I guess, per WP:INTEXT, "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal"? IDK if this applies, though...
            Re-ping: Olivaw-Daneel. Pamzeis (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think the relevant guideline is MOS:Quote#Attribution: "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (italics in original). Re. two quotes from Daily News, you may want to re-arrange to make it less messy. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Olivaw-Daneel: I've removed it, given it doesn't add that much. Pamzeis (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Short sections such as "Home media release" are discouraged per MOS:PARA. Suggest merging to one of the others (perhaps Production).
  • If I'm reading this correctly, short subsections (i.e. anything under a level-3 header or less) are discouraged, not short sections. I don't think the section would fit anywhere else in the article either.

• In some of the references, "publisher" should be changed to "work": Shout Factory, ComicBook.com.
  • Fixed ComicBook.com. I don't think Shout! Factory is a work, though.

That's it from me; interesting episode. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Olivaw-Daneel! I've hopefully responded to them all. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Couple of remaining comments above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel: Responded to the above :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support on all criteria except 1c, where I'm neutral due to the DeviantArt citation. I'll wait to hear other reviewers' opinions. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Updating to full support now that DeviantArt has been removed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Maybe you can leave comments on other FACs to possibly attract reviewers. Or perhaps leave a message on some users' talk who are familiar with this show (or at least television work in general). Anyway, let's do the honors:

• "'A Canterlot Wedding' is the title of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth episodes of the second season of the animated television series My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, which are the fifty-first and fifty-second episodes overall." This is a bit long for MOS:FIRST. And the "which are" is followed by the mention of the show (which is singular), making it sound almost grammatically incorrect. Also, the two mentions of the number of episode make it a little confusing read.
  • How about ending the first sentence at the mention of the show and starting a new one with something like "The fifty-first and fifty-second episodes overall, they were directed by..."? Wording may vary depending on what's best.
    • Revised
• "'A Canterlot Wedding' was series developer Lauren Faust's final involvement in the show. She was involved.." - usage of involve in close proximity.
  • Fixed
• "As pressure from the ceremony mounts, Twilight's friends dismiss Twilight's claims." Why not "As pressure from the ceremony mounts, Twilight's friends dismiss her claims."?
  • Honestly, IDK. Fixed.
• "This included a microsite with games and story-themed digital content, and previews of the episode were posted on social media, including The Hub's pages on Twitter and Facebook." Isn't what you have on Twitter an "account" instead of "page"? For Facebook, "page" is correct though.
  • Fixed (assuming you also have an account on FaceBook)

True, but in this case it's a page.

• "New York Daily News' David Hinckley compared" - shouldn't it be The New York Daily News'?
  • Revised
• "VanDerWerff stated Twilight's anger at Shining Armor for not informing her about his wedding sooner is "a great example" of the way children, while working towards their futures as adults, cannot completely understand their elders' activities"." The quotation mark after "activities" is misplaced or incomplete but because it does not have a beginning or ending depending on what it is supposed to be.
  • Huh, I don't know how that got there. Fixed.
• "He likened Chrysalis's retrogression to evil Disney queens and noted; "matriarchal.." - I think a colon or a comma is more suitable than the semi-colon after "noted".
  • I put that; hopefully, that fixes the issue.
• "It was viewed by 475,000 people aged 2" -> "It was viewed by 475,000{{nbsp}}people aged{{nbsp}}2"
  • Done
• "As of November 2013" - MOS:NBSP
  • Fixed

That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, FrB.TG! I'be hopefully addressed them all. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any other issues. Pamzeis (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for addressing these. If possible, I would appreciate comments on my FAC although I totally understand if you don't have the time or interest.

Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Mike Christie - Pass

I see above that Guerillero had concerns about the sources, and that you've responded by trimming some primary sources. The plot, which of course is taken from the primary source, is about a third of the article, so I immediately wonder if there's enough here for an article, or if perhaps this material should be included in the season article.

I'll go through the sources and list them here with any concerns. I'm using this version, just to be be clear what footnote numbering I'm using.

1. Primary source, just used to identify the character by name. Doesn't seem like there's any doubt about it; I think this is OK.
2. Same as above, for the same reason; OK.
3. Academic article by Fletcher. Looks fine; would you be able to email me a copy of this?

I... don't know how to email images, but here's a link to a PDF

4. A post on DeviantArt. This is pretty hard to validate. First you have to be able to show that this poster is Lauren Faust, then it has to be clear that this is the episode she's talking about, and if that's resolved this is no better than a blog post. I would cut this.

We can validate this (see above), but the comment she was replying to has been deleted, so I've removed it

5. An interview with Entertainment Weekly. Reliable; he only references it as "the aria" in season two. You presumably know he has to be referring to this, but I don't; can you cite something that demonstrates this?

Well, there's only one aria in season two, but no source discusses this so removed

6. Entertainment Weekly; this is reliable.
7 & 8. Begin's book on the art of the show. Used to source descriptions of the development of the character art; I think it's a reliable source for that.
9. Press release. Primary source; this is used twice. The first time is to cover the publicity campaign; I think the press release is only a marginal source for that. If another media outlet found the campaign worth mentioning, e.g. as a sign of the popularity of the show, then OK -- and in fact the second time you use this source you do have another source, and I think it's OK for that. I think you should consider cutting the first use of this.

Done

10. Entertainment Weekly coverage of the wedding announcement in the NYT. Reliable, and no problem at first use. The second use is to source "The New York Daily News' David Hinckley and Entertainment Weekly's Hillary Busis found the episodes ambitious, complex, captivating, and enjoyable, saying they would appeal to all audiences." Busis says the show is "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining" and Hinckley says "charming and surprisingly complex". I think "appeal to all audiences" is a bit of a stretch, though both sources imply the appeal goes beyond the original target audience. I think you should pull this back a little; I wouldn't name Busis or Hinckley inline, unless they're well-known journalists. How about "Review in the New York Daily News and Entertainment Weekly described the show as "charming and surprisingly complex", and "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining", which avoids paraphrasing issues and can't be accused of synthesis.

Done

11. Yahoo News. Reliable. OK for the bridle shower coverage, though I'd remove material from those two sentences that can only be sourced to the press release.
12. Daily News. Not a great source but this is a review so we're just sourcing the reviewer's opinion, and it's OK for that. OK for the uses you make of it, but see 14 below.
13. Commonsensemedia. Used for a review, which is no problem, but see 14 below.
14. The A.V. Club. Suggest linking also to his author page on avclub.com to explain the name change from Emily St. James, since you link to a WP article under his current name. I'm not expert on this site but I know it's treated as reliable by WP:ALBUMS, and looking through their old discussions it seems to get referenced by other reliable sources, which is a good sign. It's only used here as a source for a review, so I think this is OK. However, you use three reviews (12-14 in this list) to support the first three sentences of the "Themes" section. I think you could regard the A.V Club piece as sufficiently in-depth for this purpose, but the other two pieces are a bit flimsy to be used in this way. I would suggest dropping this paragraph of "Themes"; you might be able to move some material to the "Responses" section, though you already have some of the material there as well.

Moved

15. Fletcher again; as above, would like to see the article if possible, but no doubt it's a reliable source.
16. Valiente & Rasmussen. Reliable source; would like a copy if possible.

Here's a PDF link

17. Entertainment Weekly. Just used to source the statement that multiple outlets mentioned the William & Kate connection. No problem.
18. Press release. I would change the statements you use this for to say "claimed", since it's publicity material.

Added "according to"

19. A.V. Club. This is used to source "As of November 2013, it has drawn the most viewers of any program on The Hub"; the source says "The two-part “Canterlot Wedding” drew the most viewers of any Hub program". I don't think the source is inherently unreliable, but this is vague -- the most that week? The most ever to that date? Given that you have (claimed) numbers from the press release just before this, I think I would cut this.

Done

20. Entertainment Weekly, quoting a fansite founder about fandom's opinion; OK for how it's used.
21. & 22. SF Weekly; used for review coverage. OK.
23 & 24. Wired and the DVD distributor; the first is reliable and the second I think is OK given that all it sources is what's in the boxed set.

That's it for the sources. I'll add more comments once you've responded. I would also say that I think the plot should be trimmed -- it's over 600 words, and the rest of the body of the article is only about 1000 words, and that's before any cuts you might make as a result of my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mike Christie. I've hopefully resolved your comments. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Your changes look good; this passes source review. I added a chapter page range for Fletcher but otherwise the formatting looks fine. I'll read through again and do a content review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Content review from Mike Christie

• "Hasbro felt that Dart's design was not intimidating enough, so Dart reared the character upwards and made her more upright to appear more commanding": I've copyedited this a little from what you had, but I have a question -- what's the difference between rearing the character upwards and making her more upright? Could we combine these by saying "so Dart gave the character a more upright stance to make her appear more commanding"?
  • Done
• The way you're using Fletcher's "retrogressive" comments doesn't jibe with my reading of that paragraph. I think his point is that evil queens are a Disney stereotype that is retrogressive because it makes a powerful female character the source of evil; and that Russ's assertion that sf often treats matriarchies as termite social structures is retrogressive because it makes female power hierarchies appear alien and unnatural; and that "A Canterlot Wedding" could be seen as retrogressive because these elements are both present. Fletcher then argues that the aria makes it clear the show is aware of the stereotype that women "can't have it all", but because the singer of the aria is evil the show also implicitly criticizes the idea that women can be powerful. (You're only citing p. 30 but this argument runs over into p. 31.)
  • Revised; let me know if it is sufficient
• I think you need to define "alicorn" somewhere. I see that alicorn takes you to unicorn horn, so I would link directly to winged unicorn instead, or even put a gloss or footnote inline.
  • Linked

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. I think this is now pretty close to FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Responded to your comments; sorry for the delay. Pamzeis (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. The "Themes" section could probably be smoothed out a little more, but I think we're over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review - Pass

Source for "It has also been praised by multiple reviewers and will show the reader how the fight was "colourful and fun" as well as Pinkie Pie's usage of Twilight as a gun so they are not left questioning what it was. "? Also File:William and Kate wedding.jpg is a pretty low quality image. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Added sources; replaced William and Kate image (though there don't seem to be many high-quality images of their wedding). Can you specify what you mean by "so-so" for the ALT text (like, is it clunky or not descriptive enough or something)? I'm having a hard time figuring out what to fix... And which image(s)? Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"So-so" means that they are super long and seem to be describing the image's content rather than serving as a replacement of the image for those who can't see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: trimmed. I'm not sure if it is sufficient, though... Pamzeis (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems better, I think. This passes on licence and use review, but if anyone else has objections to the ALT text they should be considered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "further cheering up Twilight." What has previously cheered Twilight?
  • Revised
• "She meets a cold and distant Cadance, however, who has no memory of". Suggest deleting "however".
  • Done
• "Twilight's friends dismiss her claims". What claims?
  • Elaborated
• "and explains the apparent reasons for Cadance's behavior." Er, is there a reason why you don't tell us what these are?
  • Uh... no. Added
• "implores Twilight and her friends to recover the Elements of Harmony to stop the Changelings. However, they are captured. As Chrysalis celebrates her victory, Twilight frees Cadance". "Twilight frees Cadance", but you have just said "Twilight and her friends ... are captured." So how can Twilight free anyone?
  • Revised
• Link The Hub at first mention in the main article.
  • Done
• What is "Flash animation"?
  • Linked

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild: Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• And I continue to be amazed by the depth of our coverage on My Little Pony...
  • Well, if you're a brony you'd/you'll probably understand why... but a lot of the appeal of this show also comes from childhood nostalgia...
• Why isn't Princess Cadance linked in the lead?
  • Why do people keep asking questions like "Why is this like that" or "Why isn't this like that"? Am I just meant to say "Oh, I dunno, I've done that now" if it's a silly mistake? In all seriousness though, since Shining Armour (nope, I'm not going to use the American spelling, because I don't want to) is linked and his link goes to the same place Cadance's does, so it's a duplink, right? And now I've unlinked Cadance in the body
• "Unicorn Twilight Sparkle" → "The unicorn Twilight Sparkle"?
  • Done
• Perhaps link Ponyville in the body at first mention?
  • Done
• "during season one, and as consulting" → Comma unnecessary.
  • Fixed
• "surprisingly complex", and "ambitious" → Comma unnecessary.
  • Fixed
• Nice work on this, only found a couple very minor issues. AryKun (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @AryKun: Hopefully, all done. Pamzeis (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, nothing else to quibble about and a really nice article overall. AryKun (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated.
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.