Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wizards of Waverly Place/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 September 2022 [1].

Wizards of Waverly Place edit

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Wizards of Waverly Place, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Selena Gomez. This TV series was a hit for Disney and launched the career of Gomez. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in March 2021 and has since been copy-edited. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but IRL issues have been unkind, and I can't keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed edit

Almost all of the images look good, but I am concerned about File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg; the permission field has me confused as it appears to be copyrighted, yet that is contradicted by the section below, which states that it is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Something doesn't seem right here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licensed doesn't mean not copyrighted - it means the copyright holder has licensed it to be used under those terms. The permission field you reference confirms this, providing the preferred means of attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Nikkimaria. I simulated making my screen smaller and didn't notice any sandwiching. Given the clarification, I'd say that this passes image review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • These two terms, wizard (from the lead) and wizards-in-training (from the article), link to different articles and I would be consistent with one or the other.
  • Did any scholarly sources discuss the competition aspect of the series or Max being temporarily turned into a woman?
  • I have added a couple of line from scholarly sources about the competition and its impact.
  • I'd revise this part, such as the Quinceañera., into something like such as having a quinceañera. I think the use of the determiner (i.e. the) to be a little awkward, and I'm not sure the italics are necessary. Even though it is a foreign language word, I think it has passed into the English lexicon to the point that it is not entirely necessary.
  • I'm uncertain about "claimed" in Murrieta claimed he changed the family's surname. Unless this claim is more contentious, I'd use something more neutral like "said".
  • Done both above.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes as they are not particularly beneficial in my opinion. This comment is tied specifically to "edgy", "dumb", "weird", and "heartbroken". I think it would be better to paraphrase these and focus on more impactful quotes, and I'd encourage you to look throughout the article to see if I had missed any others.
  • There are a few spots where the quotes need clearer attribution in the prose. This is in reference to "slightly goofy", "comic relief", "sweet and sassy", and "absurdly hilarious". As with my above point, I'd look throughout the article to see if there. are any other quotes without clear attribution.
  • I have removed all the one-word quotes and attributed to those listed above. Let me know if there are any further quotes that should be changed.
  • I would reexamine this part, Reviewers like Garron described the central characters, as this claim is not supported in the citation. This part claims that multiple reviewers described the characters in this way when it is only Garron doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, after Murrieta left the program in April. Is there any information on why he left the show?
  • I have added a brief explanation on this.
  • I do not really seen an explanation for this in the prose. It now says he left prior the renewal, but that's not really an explanation (and it is okay if one is not available as some people just do not share this information publicly). Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, with the episode depicting the family's wizard competition. I have received and seen the following note in the FAC space a fair bit. I would avoid the sentence structure "with X verb-ing" as I have been told that is not appropriate for FA writing. I'd look throughout the article for any other instances of this and revise where necessary.
  • Fixed a couple of these I think.
  • I have a few comments for this part, while reviewing the video game, Jack DeVries said that the series was not as much of a rip-off as people might expect. This is the first time the article mentions the video game so it is somewhat jarring. I also think the rip-off criticism would benefit from further expansion because it seems more like a brief mention at the moment.
  • I am not sure of the value of this sentence, The show was also compared to Bewitched. It does not really convey that much information so I'd either remove it or go into more detail.
  • I've tried to clarify both of the above and remove the mention of the video game as it might confuse things.
  • I hate to be this person, but what makes Plugged In a high-quality source? I also found it a little jarring to have a single, more religious citation used in the article.
  • That is understandable. I will leave this for whoever does the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

I hope these comments are helpful. I did this review after reading through the article once, so once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for the comments. I would specifically appreciate if you looked over the new additions I have made. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks great so far. I have left some responses above, and I will read through everything again tomorrow morning (as I have the day off work). Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this FAC based on the prose. Wonderful work with everything and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from LM150 edit

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention again! Just some initial comments after a quick scan..

  • There are some short sentences which could probably be combined. Examples: The program last aired on January 6, 2012. The Russo family is depicted as working class. Special effects were typically used in the series.
  • I have fixed these three examples.
  • Is this the right wording? made the children mixed-race. At first, it sounded odd as I was expecting something like "wrote the children as mixed-race". But maybe it's okay.
  • I've decided to go with "wrote as".
  • The series ended to allow its actors to pursue more mature roles[42] - I don't doubt this, but I couldn't find this TV series in the source. -- LM150 20:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments @LM150: it turns out the website actually updated that source with different shows; I added the archived url. SatDis (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great @SatDis:, mostly happy to support, some suggestions –

  • In the Development and Casting section, is it necessary to state that Gomez "moved to Los Angeles" twice?
  • This sentence should be split.. it's quite wordy: Vince Cheung and Ben Montanio became the new showrunners and executive producers alongside Greenwald and Gomez revealed in July that it would be the final season of the program.
  • Also, there might be a better word that "revealed". Maybe announced?
  • "The children attempt to live life normally" - may sound better as "The children try to live normal lives"
  • "During the airing of the fourth season" - may sound better as "While the fourth season was on air" LM150 22:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64 edit

Marking my spot—should get to the review sooner rather than later JOEBRO64 12:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you need "portrayed by" in the parenthesis, just (Selena Gomez) should suffice
  • Any reason you're not providing the actors for Justin and Max even though you provide Alex's? I think you should for consistency
  • Fixed both above.
  • ... hones her supernatural abilities while doing so I think this is a little unclear. Maybe change to develops her supernatural abilities over the course of the series?
  • While the series contains fantasy elements, the main themes depicted include the focus on family, friendship, and adolescence. I'm a little confused by this—I'm not sure how it being a fantasy series contrasts with its themes.
  • Addressed both above.
  • I've noticed the article's a tad inconsistent regarding the use of the serial comma. I'd just do a read-through to address it based on your personal preference.
  • McNamara noted the show did not rely on shtick. WP:SAID: noted implies something is a statement of fact, so it's a word you want to avoid when writing a reception section. Not to mention—was McNamara writing this as a positive or a negative?
  • such as the lackluster computer animation of a griffin Likewise, we can't call something "lackluster" in Wikivoice, per WP:NPOV.

Nothing else to say. Good job! JOEBRO64 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support JOEBRO64 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • See this discussion re the reliability of IB Times, which you use in a couple of places.
  • The New York Post is also a generally unreliable source.
  • Mashable is also a dubious source, but I think you need to replace it anyway as you have it citing a release date for the Malaysian adaptation, but the article itself only says the release was planned for that date. Releases can get delayed, after all.
  • I'm also concerned about PopSugar -- this makes it sound as if it accepts pieces by non-staff writers, and searching the RS noticeboard comes up with negative opinions.
  • I see some inconsistencies in the cite formatting. For example, [96] has both the website and publisher parameters, [68] has neither, [29] has website but no publisher, and [76] has publisher but no website. Any consistent rule for when to use each parameter is fine, but I can't see what your rule might be here.

Pausing there for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SatDis, I just realized you might have interpreting my comment as meaning I was coming back to this review shortly; in fact I'm pausing because I want to wait till you've responded above before I continue with the review -- I can't tell which citations, if any, are formatted wrongly till I understand how you're intending to format them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thank you, I will address these within the next few days. SatDis (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have removed sources from New York Post (and a lot of info that went with it), Mashable, PopSugar and IBT (one was an interview with the show's creator). I have removed [68], [76] and [77] as they are unreliable sources. [29] has been fixed: each source should have a website and publisher, if it doesn't, it means I am unsure as to who the publisher is or there is none. I also only wikilink the first appearance of each source. SatDis (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another pass through; here are some more questions.

  • More reliable source questions: what makes the following sites reliable?
    • MarkRobinsonWrites.com -- looks like a blog.
      • Isn't a blog acceptable in the context of a reviewer? Can remove if needed.
    • TVshowsonDVD.com
      • These are press releases about the DVDs. Can remove if needed.
    • Imagen.org -- looks like a one-person operation
      • It looks to me like this is from the Imagen Foundation which runs a legitimate awards ceremony. If you are saying this is unreliable, I will need to remove all of the Imagen Awards listings in the article. Can remove if needed.
  • For the cites without publisher:
    • The Star (Malaysia) is published by Star Media Group Berhad
    • USA Today is published by Gannett
    • CommonSenseMedia is published by CommonSenseMedia
    • MTV News is published by MTV
    • LA Times is published by Los Angeles Times Communications
    Some nominators skip publishers where they're identical to or easily determined from the website/work title, and if you want to do that that's fine, but I would say USA Today and The Star would not be covered by that exception.
  • You have cite web citations that have no website/work parameter; for example the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards citations, the TV Tonight awards, the Artios awards, and a couple of others.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @Mike Christie: Done all of the above. Like I said, I am happy to remove those three sources (MarkRobinsonWrites.com, TVshowsonDVD.com and Imagen.org) but just thought I'd let you know their purpose. SatDis (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look at the formatting again in a moment, but re the reliability, it's not always necessary to remove a source that is questioned. If you believe that the source is reliable, you can make the case -- often I will ask because I'm unfamiliar with the source and can't find evidence of reliability; if you can supply that evidence then the source is OK to use. For the Mark Robinson source, see WP:BLOG -- the relevant criterion is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Is he a well-known reviewer with other publications who covers this genre? If so it might be OK to use this source. For TVshowsonDVD, those look like press releases to me, but is TVshowsonDVD a reliable source for reproducing them? If you can show the site was owned by a corporate entity with editorial control that would probably be enough; or if you can find evidence that it is treated as a reliable source by other sources that are themselves reliable, that would also help. For Imagen, I just can't find evidence that this is more than the privately run website of the woman who founded it; and anyone can create a website and start handing out awards. Are the awards treated as significant by other media sources? Is there an industry group that supports the site? I suspect this probably is a reliable source but I couldn't find proof. We have an article on the awards, but again it only talks about Helen Hernandez as the founder. Perhaps one of the sources at that article will provide enough background to prove it's reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the formatting, I see there are still some missing publishers -- e.g. the Kid's Choice Awards, TVShowsOnDVD, WEBN-TV, Mark Robinson, and there are still missing work/website parameters: Young Artist awards, Imagen Awards, the Emmys, Australian Nickelodeon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Fixed all of the above mentioned. TV Tonight is the website and there is no publisher; same for Mark Robinson. Kids' Choice Awards is the website and I have listed Nickelodeon as the publisher. SatDis (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Mark Robinson, if you read his bio here [2], it appears he has authored several books on TV and is a featured writer for reliable websites such as Playbill. I think this may qualify as evidence.
I can see that TVShowsonDVD was owned by CBS Interactive and incorporated into TV Guide until the website shut down.
After digging into Imagen, I found an article from The Hollywood Reporter (here [3]) which seems to support the awards. It appears here [4] to be a legitimate awards ceremony. Variety covered the 2021 awards here [5].
Please let me know if I can make any further changes. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with Mark Robinson and Imagen based on what you found. For TVShowsonDVD, this page makes it seem a one man operation in 2011, which is when your cites date from. What did you find that convinced you it was owned by CBS? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Ah, I see. This source [6] is from 2013 which means the 2011 source would probably be a "one man operation" phase. If so, I won't be able to use the sources? SatDis (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proving it's reliable after 2011 certainly doesn't help, though I don't see how you make the connection even in that article -- was TVShowsonDVD owned by TVGN? If you want to keep it we would need evidence that it was reliable in 2011. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: All I could find was this post about integration with TV Guide here [7]. If this isn't enough for reliability, I think I will remove the sources as I'm not sure what else to look for. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest removing it unless we can come up with better proof. Once you've done that I'll go back over the article and check for formatting consistency again, and then check links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mike Christie: I have removed the source. 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another pass for formatting.

  • The TV Tonight cites have no publisher parameter.
  • The Imagen cites have publisher but no website/work.
  • Fixed.

That looks like it for formatting. I'll check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the links and checking reliability for sites I haven't looked at yet.

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • TV by the Numbers -- looks like it's a hobby site run by two friends, per this page.
  • Removed.
    • Futon Critic -- looks like a personal site again, though it seems the owner may be a professional in the field?

Links look good, and other than the items above I see no more issues with reliability or formatting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thanks, I have addressed all of the above. I have left The Futon Critic as yes, the owner is Brian Ford Sullivan, a professional in the field. The two sources used from this site are press releases and I believe this website is a trusted publisher of press releases. SatDis (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Not a full review, but I think the critical reception needs work. See WP:RECEPTION; you have the "A said B" problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have addressed this and happy to fix anything more. SatDis (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think more is needed. You've tied some sentences together, which does improve the flow, but it's still essentially a listing of one opinion after another, without much structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mike Christie: I have added some further structure.
  • Paragraph 1 (First half): Positive reception - ensemble cast and their delivery of humor
  • Paragraph 1 (Second half): Positive reception - concept and themes
  • Paragraph 2: Negative reception - characters, contradictory messages and supernatural concept
  • Let me know if this isn't enough structure and how to improve it. SatDis (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement. If I get time for a full review I'll come back and comment again, but the changes you've made are enough for me not to oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "and gave rise to the development of": a little long-winded. How about "Tie-ins included merchandise..."?
  • Done.
  • "when not running the family business with his wife, Theresa, a sandwich shop designed to look like a subway station, on the ground level of their apartment building": needs rewording; as written it's too easy to read this as saying that Theresa is a sandwich shop.
  • Fixed.
  • "Heidi Denzel de Tirado wrote in a journal article": how it was published is less important than what de Tirado's background is. I would suggest making this "Academic [or whatever the right description is] Heidi Denzel de Tirado argued that".
  • Fixed.
  • "and while they celebrate traditions such as having a quinceañera, their culture is not prominently featured in most episodes": suggest "but their culture is not prominently featured in most episodes, with occasional exceptions such as Alex's quinceañera".
  • Used this.
  • "Denzel de Tirado analyzed that the cultural representation is conservative as it takes place within a surreal, magical setting": "analyzed" is not the right verb; it takes a direct object. However I don't understand the point she's making. Why would the setting mean that the cultural representation is conservative?
  • Upon revisiting this, I don't believe it is a strong point and have removed it.
  • "The series' setting is inspired by Waverly Place in Greenwich Village, Manhattan": I'm not sure what "inspired by" means here. It's not just inspired by, it's actually set there, isn't it?
  • Yes. The source also states it is a version of that setting, so I have changed to "the series is set in a fictionalized version of Waverly Place"
  • "Disney executives discovered Selena Gomez at an open casting call in Austin, Texas, at age twelve": this makes it sounds as though she had no prior acting experience, but in fact her first TV appearance was at age ten.
  • I have reworded to make it appear more like she was noticed by Disney at this point in her career.
  • Can we clarify the timeline at the end of the "Development" section? You use TVTickets.com as a source for Gomez being attached to the show in February. This interview was published in July but took place that February, and says shooting was about to start in two weeks. But in March the names were still not settled on? It's hard to believe they could shoot much footage without finalizing the names. Is there anything more concrete about the shooting schedule? She appeared in several Hannah Montana episodes, not just one, and the source you cite doesn't say it was after she was cast in Waverly Place -- the air date (July 2007) of the first episode was certainly after she was cast, but it was probably shot before the EW interview in February.
  • Okay. Yes, the TV Tickets source and EW interview both mention filming commencing in February so I think that is a given. It is possible that the March 2007 Investor newsletter hadn't been updated with the correct names. As the series didn't air until October, that's over six months of filming, so it is possible that elements were reworked (or the February filming was just a pilot with different names). As for Hannah Montana, I have moved the sentence and reworded so that it fits in with the timeline and can be supported by the source.
  • "Her affiliation with the network led to the formation of the band Selena Gomez & the Scene who Disney signed to their label, Hollywood Records, and subsequently, a prominent solo music career." Why would the affiliation lead to the formation of the band? Do you mean that because she was working with Disney, Disney suggested that she form a band which they could then sign to their label?
  • Absolutely, it was standard for Disney to sign their actors to their label. But I understand the source doesn't say this, so I have reworded.
  • Just checking: Bailee Madison would have been barely eleven at the start of the fourth season, and she's the female transformation of Jake Austin, who would have been sixteen? I don't doubt the actress played the role, but just wanted to check that she was really meant to be the same age as Jake's character, as the article implies.
  • You are correct, I have changed the sentence to "transformed into a younger female".
  • "Special effects were typically used in the series to create the magic spells": this tells us almost nothing except that they didn't use real magic. If we can't be more specific I would cut this.
  • Removed.
  • Any reason you mention the renewals for the third and fourth seasons, but not the second?
  • I cannot find any source for the second season renewal and have done a deep search.
  • "Murrieta's own background inspired writing the Russo family as mixed-race": this is sourced to "my agent called and said, 'They want to buy that pilot you pitched them. Something about your dad and family. You've got to call them back.' It was very lucky." The show, revolving around a mixed-race family much like Murrieta's, ran for one season on the WB. When he took on executive-producing, it was called "The Amazing O'Malleys." Murrieta renamed them the Russos and made the family — two brothers and a sister with wizardly powers — mixed race as well." This doesn't support what you have in the article; yes, he was the one who changed the family to be mixed-race, but it doesn't explicitly say his background inspired this. He might have done so just because he thought it worked for the previous show he wrote.
  • Understood, have reworded.
  • "the contentious relationships between the siblings was reminiscent": this is a direct quote from the source; this needs to be attributed or paraphrased.
  • Reworded.
  • I'd like to read the Ackerman article, which you cite quite a bit, but I only have access to a couple of pages on Google Books. Can you send me the whole article, or link to somewhere I can read it?
  • See below.
  • "The series depicts stories about family, friends and growing up": why does this belong in the writing section? It seems to be a restatement of what's been said earlier in the article.
  • Removed.
  • "Greenwald explained that since the unaired pilot, the brother-sister dynamic was the heart of the show; Murrieta explained he enjoyed allowing the characters to age, referencing Justin graduating from high school." I'm not sure why these two sentences are connected; they seem unrelated. I also don't understand what Greenwald is saying -- the brother-sister dynamic was also in the unaired pilot? This whole section seems a bit like factoids strung together. I know that unfortunately that's sometimes all you have to work with, because the sources don't conveniently assemble all the writing/filming information for you to work with, but it's a bit too fragmented at the moment.
  • I have removed the connection and disregarded the second "factoid" (you are right), and clarified Greenwald's comment.
  • I said above I would not oppose based on the critical reception section, and I'll try to stick to that, but I do think it can still be improved. For example, "has received positive reviews for its use of an ensemble cast" seems odd -- some reviewer actually said "it's a good show because it has an ensemble cast", or words to that effect?
  • Have changed to "for its actors"
  • "delivery of humor" also seems an unnatural phrase -- does the review just mean they were good comic actors?
  • Yes. I have changed the sentence to "positive reviews for its actors and their comedic skills"
  • "McNamara believed that Justin and Max did not serve as comic relief, but appear as often as Alex does": I understand what you're getting it, but saying a reviewer "believes" that an actor appears as often as the star isn't a good way to argue that they are "not just comic relief", but presumably costars in McNamara's eyes.
  • In that case, I've removed the "but appear as often as Alex does" fragment.
  • "Reviewers criticized the characters in the series": this could be phrased less generally -- it sounds as though every character came in for general criticism.
  • Have reworded to "Some characters were criticized by reviewers"
  • "Alex was viewed as an ineffective role model because of her rebellious nature": "ineffective" implies the intention is for her to be a role model, but she (or the script) is failing; is that really what is meant?
  • Yes, I believe so - the expectation with a Disney series aimed at children is that the protagonist will be a responsible role model. However, I see what you're saying about the word "ineffective" (of a desired purpose) - so I have reworded to "Paul Asay of Plugged In did not view Alex as a role model because of her rebellious nature" - this is now attributed to that specific reviewer.
  • "the role of the parents was analyzed as them both being too foolish": this is clumsy and needs rephrasing.
  • Reworded.
  • 'Paul Asay of Plugged In referred to the program's depiction of angels as "spiritually misleading"': I think for context we might say that Plugged In is a Christian site; the comment would seem odd to someone who didn't know that.
  • I have added, though it now appears earlier in the paragraph.

Oppose. Overall I think there's some work to do to get this to FAC standards. I'm a bit concerned that the Ackerman article has not been used as much as it might be; a 12-page academic article about the show ought to yield more than supporting citations for the basic themes and a sentence or two more, but I'm not opposing over that since I have not yet read it. The "Writing and filming" and "Critical reception" sections are the weakest, both for the writing and the sense they give of having been assembled from fragments, but some of the earlier sections are weak in spots as well. I am also concerned that a spot-check might be in order -- I've pointed out two places above where the sources don't accurately support the text in the article, and given that I only checked half-a-dozen sources that's a high percentage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie: I have addressed all of the above and am prepared to make any further changes to improve the article. As for the Ackerman article, I also was only able to view the two pages on Google Books, but still able to use heavily for the amount. As it is not freely licensed on the internet, I don't think it can be used any further. As you have said, some of the sections have been assembled from fragments due to a lack of sources - in terms of the "Writing and filming" section, if it currently isn't acceptable, I believe most of that section can be combined elsewhere and ultimately removed. I am happy to work through any other sections. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the points above. I am going to leave my oppose in place, I'm afraid. For one thing I would like another reviewer to go through and support before I revisit, to get a second opinion on whether the issues have been addressed. I'm also concerned that the article was written without reference to Ackerman's paper. It's OK in some cases to not review a source -- even in specialized areas like Anglo-Saxon history there can be hundreds or thousands of articles about an obscure topic, and nominators are expected to know the field well enough to be able to identify the important sources. Here there's only one academic source that focuses specifically on the topic, and I think without consulting it we can't say that the article is comprehensive, which is an FA requirement. I recommend that you withdraw the nomination and request the paper at WP:RX. It might not add much to the article, but we won't know that till you've read it. I don't think this is the sort of work that should be done at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time @Mike Christie: respectfully, I won't be withdrawing the nomination, as I have had several supports so far. If the nomination fails, I will seek your continued suggestions within a peer review. SatDis (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now requested the paper at WP:RX. SatDis (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mike Christie: I have access to the Ackerman paper now through WP:RX - here is the link. [8] Just checking I can link to this site in the citations? I will ping you again once I have incorporated the source into the article. SatDis (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know -- I'll read through again once you've incorporated any new material. I hope there's something useful in it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mike Christie: now that I have been able to read the full source, I was able to incorporate some new material, but mainly the previous material was able to be consolidated. I have moved the full Ackerman source to a new bibliography section, along with a few other articles, to avoid too many ref links for the book and show the specific pages for each claim. Hopefully you will be able to read through the changes soon. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review edit

It's been weeks since I reviewed this, so I thought it would be more productive to read the article through afresh and decide whether to support or oppose without reference to my previous comments. I will also spot check a few sources as I go through.

  • "the existence of wizards must remain hidden to the wider mortal world": is "mortal" (as in "not immortal") the right world -- i.e. are the wizards immortal? Or is this just the in-universe term? If the latter, that's OK.
  • "The series ended to allow its actors to pursue more mature roles": I don't think this is properly supported by the source, which says in full "After Wizards of Waverly Place came to an end in 2012, Jake T. Austin totally shaded Selena Gomez on Twitter, claiming that she decided to leave the show to pursue more mature roles. “When an artist’s definition of ‘growing with their fans’ is creating content they aren’t even allowed to see…” he wrote, referring to her role in Spring Breakers." That makes it Austin's assertion only, and it doesn't refer to anyone but Gomez.
  • "The series premiere of Wizards of Waverly Place aired on October 12, 2007 as a lead-out to the premiere of Twitches Too, and attracted 5.9 million viewers.": the source doesn't say anything about WoWP being a lead-out, or even that it was the next program after Twitches Too.

@WP:FAC coordinators: I saw the request for an additional spot-check. I checked about a dozen sources as I read through this time, and two of the three comments above are problems I found in doing so. Assuming SatDis doesn't point out that I missed the appropriate support in the source, I think this is problematic, given that I found a couple of sourcing errors earlier. However, this is the only concern I have left -- Ackerman's work has been integrated and I no longer have any concerns with the writing. If it were not for the source-text integrity concerns I would strike my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @Mike Christie: Yes, "mortal world" is the in-universe term.
  • I've now changed it to see Twitches wasn't a "lead-out", but just aired "on the same night".
  • I have changed to "Austin claimed Gomez left to..." - but I find the following sentence and source from the AV Club also supports this sentiment.
  • I hope you'll find that these technicalities and any further errors can be easily fixed. Seeing as you are now happy with the prose, I'm determined to fix any other issues. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the above as they're all fixed. Re the AV Club cite: I don't think it does -- she says it's time for Gomez to move on, but it doesn't support the statement as it was written, and even if it had, source-text integrity requires that the source is in the right place in the text. I did think about striking my oppose because there are no more specific errors I know of to fix, but I'm going to leave it in place. For the benefit of the coordinators I want to make it clear here that the reason the oppose is in place is because two sets of checking both turned up inaccuracies. I know of no current errors. It's an oddity of how these reviews work: once you lose faith in an article it is hard to recover it without restarting the review. For example, if this article does get archived, and you renominate it, if I (or someone else) finds no errors in a spotcheck I would be happy to support it with only a review of the changes made since this nomination. Anyway, either way, best of luck with this. I don't plan to comment on this FAC again, but do ping me if it is archived and you renominate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Mike Christie: just a note to say that User:Kaleeb18 is completing a full source spot-check below, and I can ping you once they have completed this review and errors have been addressed. SatDis (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Mike Christie: The source review / spot-check below is now complete and has been given a pass. SatDis (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that spot check covered every single citation, I'm happy to strike my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kaleeb18 edit

This is just a look over the reception for now.

  • "Marah Eakin felt that it was a departure from Disney's typical series. While the cast demonstrates exaggerated acting, there is minimal slapstick humor." – The second sentence by itself just sounds like you are describing the show and should go in the premise section. So to make this sound better and flow more as a review you could say 'Marah Eakin felt that it was a positive departure from Disney's typical series, with minimal slapstick humor but still having exaggerated acing.'
  • Done.
  • "McNamara believed that Justin and Max did not serve as comic relief" – I would add 'On the other hand,' at the beginning of the sentence to make it not too basic
  • Done.
  • After looking over all the refs in this section, they all support what they back up
  • "series combined fantasy and comedy seamlessly" – Seamlessly should be in quotes
  • If anything can be added from Ackerman's book, that would be great.
  • I have now gained access to the full article and moved this to the bibliography.

probably more to come...

  • I think there is some from this book that can be added. Other than that there doesn't seem to be any sources I could find that you could add to the article.
  • Have used some.
  • the lead looks great
  • "He had also worked on a pilot for NBC" – why is pilot not linked there but is linked in its second appearance?
  • Fixed.
  • "Justin is sarcastic and Greenwald described him" – According to WP:VOICE, avoid stating opinions as facts. Justin is sarcastic is stated as a fact
  • Fixed.
  • For the ref formatting, Orange County Register should be The Orange County Register and Deadline should be Deadline Hollywood
  • Fixed.
  • E! News and NBC Universal are linked twice in the refs. So remove the links from ref 104. Also NBC Universal should be written as NBCUniversal.
  • Fixed.
  • Done. MTV is already linked in ref 29.
  • Also add |url-access=limited to refs for websites that have a paywall such as the NY Times, LA Times, the New York Daily News, and the Orlando Sentinel.
  • Done. For the sources that have a paywall, I have also shown |url-status=dead so that an archived version is linked.
  • Thank you for the review @Kaleeb18: I have addressed all of the above. SatDis (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! One last thing I have found is according to MOS:BIB, a section header named bibliography for works cited is discouraged ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: I don't mean to disagree, but I feel like that refers more to sections that could be titled "discography"/"filmography" etc., MOS:BIB also states: "Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used" - I used the title for the Hannah Montana FA - let me know if okay or not... as bibliography is defined as "list of books referred to in a scholarly work". Thanks. SatDis (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a problem. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source check edit

I see the concerns Mike Christie has brought up, and I am going to do the long job of looking over all the refs (excluding the critical reception because I have already looked over those). ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither ref 1.D or 2.C mention anything about Jerry winning his own family competition
  • "Alex reveals her secret to Harper in the second season" – nothing is backing this up
  • "she later rejoins to continue dating her werewolf boyfriend" – nothing is mentioned about her rejoining in the ref

The above are not really important as it is just part of the plot.

  • @Kaleeb18: I have added episode citations which feature the plot in-universe to back up plot claims. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disney executives first became aware of Selena Gomez at an open casting call in Austin, Texas" – ref 15 says Austin and ref 30 says Dallas so which is it actually
  • "Wizards as an upcoming half-hour live-action" – nothing in the ref mentions that it was half-hour or live-action
  • @Kaleeb18: Fixed both. As the casting information is dubious, I have changed to Texas and provided both locations in a note. SatDis (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as a "wisecracking underachiever"" – I do not see this quote in either ref 1 or 41, but is in ref 11. So ref 11 needs to backing that up
  • "asked for her character to remain edgy and tomboyish" – it seems as though she only asked to be edgy, but was described as tomboyish
  • "Greenwald described Justin as sarcastic and a nerd" – In neither ref 17 or 43 is Justin described by Greenwald as sarcastic but is by the author of ref 17
  • ref 80 does not say Gomez won Fave TV star, but rather nominated
  • ref 81 mentions nothing of Fave TV show
"David Henrie plays the sarcastic Justin Russo" – don't forget WP:VOICE say something more like 'plays Justin Russo, who is considered to be sarcastic'. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over them all now, and this is a pass. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several p/pp errors. Eg cites 4 and 8 among others. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: I do not see a problem with the page numbers. If you look at the actual page of the paper and not the pdf you can see they are all backing up the info. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 4: "p. 88–89." should read 'pp. 88–89.' etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean now. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:11, 9 September 2022 (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/Wizards_of_Waverly_Place/archive1&oldid=1109529375"