Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 21:36, 20 October 2009 [1].

Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man) edit

Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it sufficiently covers the topic at hand and meets all requirements for FA status. It has gone through a GA nomination, a copyedit from a non-biased editor, and a peer review. Now, I'm sure something bound to show up are a few of the references I use. Here's my standpoint as to why they are reliable: http://www.mania.com/crispin-freeman-charges-up-spiderman-electro_article_90758.html has been referenced in several other RSs, while http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10768 has been thoroughly confirmed by co-developer Greg Weisman as being official, and his way of reaching out to fans. I'll be sure to adhere to any issues or concerns you may have. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • http://firefox.org/news/articles/1281/1/Review-Spectacular-Spider-Man-quotInteractionsquot/Page1.html
    • The website is a review and interview website - non-user run, credited author information, and countless other things on the site seem to show that it is a well-class website that falls under the criteria for WP:RS. I don't see any true reason it's not reliable, unless you can find one. The Flash {talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced. See the About Us page: http://firefox.org/news/pages/About-Us.html. "Firefox News is a blog and news site with news, reviews and articles by writers who can legitimately be considered "part of fandom."" The writers are bloggers and fans, and not part of any peer-reviewed editorial staff. Have a look at the criteria here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. If they cannot be fulfilled, then the source has to be removed. RB88 (T) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed reference. Now that that's considered unreliable, [2] and [3] also support the "Gargoyles" is official. The Flash {talk} 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the italics on all the publishers as they are web-only and not print media.
  • Current ref 1 needs the publisher's "Magazine" removed to stop any confusion with print media.
    • It's the name of the website - I don't see how it's can cause confusion, it's an e-zine... The Flash {talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, someone might glance at it and assume otherwise. Or put it in italics thinking it's print media also. I'll remove it myself. RB88 (T) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 6's publisher needs to be simply "Mania".
  • There's one link that needs disambiguation. Check the toolbox.
    • Yeah, that's the link in the "see also" at the top - it's actually supposed to be a disambig., lol ;) The Flash {talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Ref and article dates look fine. I'll review this in more detail as it looks good (and it's short :P), but I share RB88's concern about Firefox News: they basically mooch off Mozilla's name and don't assert even basic credentials or editing standards. --an odd name 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I left a comment above about my reasons to support Firefox News. The Flash {talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Full support Aside from the FN thing (maybe I'll check the site again later to comfort myself :P), the article is short but perfect. I've not watched the episode but I can't think of much else to add. The statements match the sources, and remaining style problems (if any) are minor or debatable. The fair-use rationale is...meh, but don't worry; I'll strengthen that later. If you can somehow remove FN and add another reliable critical review in its place, I'd fully support right away. Without FN, however, you'd only have the Nielsen ratings and one critic to go by, so I'd understand if you'd rather not. Well done. --an odd name 02:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If enough reviews disagree with my reasoning for FN, I'll remove it - I'm sure I can piece together some reviews for the DVDs that mention the episode, lol. The Flash {talk} 02:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale strengthened. --an odd name 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that. :) The Flash {talk} 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Pleas clear up Dr. Connor's relation to Peter, Gwen and Eddie; why is he demonstrating the source to them?
  • I think it's quite significant that Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, Justice League, and Darkwing Duck were all animated series.
  • My personal opinion is that the production section is simply to short to be divided in subsections, and I would advice you to merge them into one big "Production" section (example: "Volcano" also has one big production section instead of subsections). The main reason I point this out to you is because of their relatively short length and the fact that the image of Freeman pierces through the "Design and voice work" subsection. Of course, the choice is up to you.
  • "Hopps noted that he "like[s] the humanity" of Electro", the quote should be in present tense, as the rest of the article is.
  • Don't use ALLCAPS in quotes.
  • Reception: "Come on, Aunt May isn't freaking out hearing THAT?".--Music26/11 09:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but "feel[s] obligated to point out that the uniform excellence of the lot made this a challenging task."[11]", the quote should be in present tense, as the rest of the article is.
  • The "see also" section is redundant as the article already links to the page.
  • Again my opinion, but I would also advice you to change the date formatting from ISO to MM-DD-YY.

When you fix my comments I will support. Good luck with editing, and feel free to review my FAC "The Revenge".--Music26/11 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My issues have been resolved and I think this article looks good enough to be a FA.--Music26/11 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. I've left a few comments on the FAC for "The Revenge" you should check out, BTW. The Flash {talk} 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone have further concerns? Other than DVD Talk and the dab—both minor even to me—I see none. (My support stands.) --an odd name 13:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suporrt.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, do you have any thoughts on the article, its sources, etc.? Featuring an article takes consensus, not simple votes—if Raul654 or someone else decided they should review or un-feature this article and wonder why you supported it, what would you tell them? --an odd name 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i would say that the artical look stable, it's refrences ar cited, it looks lik it has a good amount of info that is concentrated on the episode, though i would think you could make the pruducction or recrption longer, as when i GAR your other spider man episode it had a bigger producction thgen this one, i see there is no edit wars, the lead is alright, and this might be an important comment, when Music2611 nominated a Family Guy episode it had a very extensive and complete inmformation on the episode so i would say that is what is missing from tthis episode.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I indented your comment because it replied to mine.) Thanks. I don't see how more production or reception info would be needed here. It covers the staff and reviews that applied to this episode quite well—how their Electro was developed, what outsiders actually thought of the episode and the villain—and anything else related to the general show or other episodes already has their own articles. Some articles have full cast lists or things like that, but I think those add too much weight to minor staff members. The plot section is short (as it should be for a half-hour episode) but covers the setup and major points of the story well. Besides, I couldn't find any more reliable sources for this, and I'm sure Flash has tried during the months spent on the article, so nothing else really can be added. --an odd name 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like anoddname said, there's nothing left to add. The episode you reviewed, Pedro, had a lot more production because it was the pilot and more development info is generally available for that. Plus, the plot summary is - per WP:TV and WP:MOS ground rules - supposed to be as short as you can make it. Which, indeed, it is. But, yes, thanks for the support. The Flash {talk} 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite bored so I'll just join this, kinda redundant, discussion :P. Sourece for season premieres and finales and especially pilots are much easier to find than for regular episode articles. Sometimes DVD extras are a big help, but editors don't always have access to those. I find it surprising how much info Flash was able to find for this article, hence my support. Cheerio.--Music26/11 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the surprise. --an odd name 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Interactions_(The_Spectacular_Spider-Man)/archive1&oldid=1138463843"