Talk:It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown/GA1

GA nomination successful following improvements made in sufficient time

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. Expect my initial comments to come up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the infobox and lead section.

Infobox

File:GPCBtitlecard66.jpeg has an appropriate FUR
Not sure it's worth listing All Stars or You're in love here, even when they're also Peanuts animations.

Lead

I'd scrap the "prime time" bit when that's a minor detail compared to being animated or made for TV, plus the timeframe something airs isn't a genre/medium
The prose should more explicitly indicate that Charles Schulz was the writer for this special
Too many sentences begin with "It", which gets repetitive. You can reduce this by replacing some instances of that with Great Pumpkin.
The lead feels incomplete without any mention of voice cast members. They played a crucial part in making the special!

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

You can use "Plot" or "Summary" for a section title, but both at once is redundant
At 562 words, this goes against how WP:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section says to use 400 words at most for individual episodes, which seems to be the closest match to TV specials. It either way is bloated and could use a trim.
Unless part of a quote or title, avoid contractions like "he'll".
Use italics for titles of works, not as a form of emphasis like you did with "if" and "when".

Cast

This unfortunately has no citations at all. Unlike plot sections, these aren't exempt from needing sources. You can either attach references to each individual role or have a joint link at the top or bottom containing all their names that says something along the lines of "Credits adapted from _____". See Saving Mr. Banks and Friends with Benefits (film) for good examples of what I mean.
While not a requirement, it could help enhance the section to have some brief character descriptions

I'll get to "Background" and maybe "Production" in my next batch of comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

It appears File:Charles Schulz NYWTS.jpg was taken from a print source, and I'll assume good faith that it can be claimed as own work without any evidence suggesting otherwise
No need to link Schulz's name twice in the section's prose
To give readers a more specific sense of production time, I'd at least add how A Charlie Brown Christmas aired in December. Your choice on whether to add this was on the 9th. If work began after Charlie Brown's All-Stars debuted four months before Great Pumpkin, then that would also help pinpoint things. A glimpse into The Art and Making of Peanuts Animation: Celebrating Fifty Years of Television Specials seems to suggest this was the case with a quote of "Look, the first two were really good. Now we need a holiday blockbuster."
Assuming the little numbers and ranges next to in-text citations are supposed to be page numbers, you might as well move them into the references so people can tell that different sentences are attributed to different parts of the book used.

Production

Starting three consecutive sentences with "the" feels repetitive, and I'd minimally replace one instance of "the network" with "CBS".
Having watched We Need a Blockbuster, Charlie Brown! The Making of The Great Pumpkin in full (yes I own a DVD containing that and have seen the main Great Pumpkin special itself many times), I know for a fact that it was actually Bill Melendez who voiced Snoopy and insisted on having actual children voice the Peanuts kids, not Lee Mendelson (plus the former is explicitly mentioned here to have played the famous dog)
To reduce the instances of "she" from Steinberg's recordings, you could go with "She was taken to the studio to record all of her lines the same night, and developed a severe lisp after losing her tooth the following day"
Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the exact same references more than once in a row within a paragraph, meaning that ref#6 only needs to be placed at the end of "frequent movement of the camera".
It would really benefit this section to give times for production finishing and concluding. Finding this could be difficult (and often appears to be for animation), but see what you can gather.

Up next will be "Soundtrack". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

Discogs isn't a trustworthy reference when full of user-generated content. However, the recording date and musicians involved can be found here.
You'll need citations for instances when "Linus and Lucy" is played
While I don't see any release date in this (which also says nothing about Charlie Brown's Holiday Hits or Oh Good Grief!), there is another piece mentioning October 5, 2018 instead of the 12th
The Second Disc doesn't at all discuss the 2018 release being criticized

Release

Sorry to nitpick, but The Free Lance-Star doesn't give a premiere date (which you instead could find through other citations already implemented such as Vulture and re-use here)
Don't use Blu-ray.com (four instances were found) per WP:WikiProject Film/Resources

Sorry for the delay! I got sidetracked until now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, I've removed minor details (such as each updated blu-ray release and the specific points where certain music plays) where they aren't covered by reliable secondary sources. The current citing is standard usage for Template:Rp style citations. I believe I've addressed everything else to this point. Do you have a timeframe for the rest of the review? I'm hoping to have it finished before the article's annual surge of pageviews begins in early October. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have everything else up within the next 48 hours. In the meantime, something I forgot to mention earlier for the cast section is that characters voiced by the same person are better off separated with "and" instead of slashes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

Flawless!

Reception

File:Snoopy in "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown".png has an appropriate FUR
Only two reviews total from critics isn't nearly enough for a famous animation like this. Furthermore, you've hardly got anything for Lawrence Laurent and Clay Gowran (not even using quotes), and their bits included feel like incomplete thoughts.
- The reviews in the article are ones that were described by a reliable source. I've added a couple more random ones, though I don't know if the opinions of these specific people are WP:DUE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing wrong with the ones you added. As long as they're from trustworthy publications, I can't see anything undue about including others. I initially would've expected at least 10 total for something highly popular. Regardless, you could expand on what Gowran thought about this particular special, and the musical score comment as merely saying "emphasizing the music score" doesn't tell readers much about what Laurent thought. Along with a consensus at Rotten Tomatoes, you can find other commentary from credible reviewers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sure you meant well by adding three Emmy noms per The Washington Post, it turns out this only got two per Emmy records and didn't win either of those. Nevertheless, I'd give the categories it was nominated for.
- Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't hurt to name animators who praised the French countryside scene.
- This is something I looked for, but I did not see it in the sources I checked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - On page 15, I found Jeff Pidgeon and Paul Felix. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's own commentary doesn't belong here when Lee Mendelson was involved with the project and not a TV/film critic. You can move his quotes to "Production" instead. Also, more WP:REPCITE for him when this only has to be used at the end of "Bill Melendez's animation masterpiece".
- Moved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using "cited" from "cited as the best" reads awkwardly; I'd instead go with "ranked as", "regarded as", or "deemed"
- Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Anything on how this influenced future non-Peanuts animations?
- I didn't find anything beyond introducing the concept of a Halloween special. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's name other Peanuts specials that mention The Great Pumpkin as only listing one feels incomplete
- This is the one that the source considered significant enough to mention. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Don't use italics for "The Second Disc", "Five Cents Please" (the format you should use instead of "fivecentsplease.org", AP (which should read as Associated Press), "The Numbers", NPR, SFGATE
"Univ. Press of Mississippi" → University Press of Mississippi
To keep date formatting consistent throughout this page, use MDY format for all citations

Overall

Prose: Needs touching up
Referencing: After fixing things not mentioned by attributed refs, I'll say the only remaining problem is improperly formatted citations
Coverage: Here's the biggest issue: some expansion is needed
Neutrality: No bias detected
Stability: Looks good with recent changes being made in accordance with review
Media: The non-free images have sufficient justifications for inclusion and Schulz's picture has no copyright concerns
Verdict: Putting the nomination on hold for seven days effective now. If my remaining concerns are sufficiently addressed within that time, then I'll be happy to mark it as passed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, I've replied to the points above. If you have a certain preference for the citations, I have no objection if you modify them or change the WP:CITEVAR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATEUNIFY recommends going with the same format for each ref, so I don't know why there's some YYYY-MM-DD dates when it's more common (and seemingly preferred on Wikipedia overall) to use DMY or MDY. You also aren't consistent with how "Five Cents Please" gets formatted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD is often created by the autocite tool, which I frequently use. But MOS:DATEUNIFY and ref formats aren't relevant to GA anyway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly went ahead and made some tweaks, nothing major. While my reviews might dig deeper than most others for GA, I do believe it overall helps improve article quality and can increase chances of passing a future FAC (assuming you later plan to take this there). Before I forget, were you able to find further details on a production timeframe? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources gave any specific dates that I saw, and more specific searches turned up nothing. I suspect that the problem here is that production most likely took place entirely within 1966, and sources often don't feel the need to be more specific than the year. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, along with adding the missing Emmy nominations (namely "Special Classifications of Individual Achievements"), there are just a couple things left to do that I somehow didn't notice until now: make the V from the "Van Pelt" surname upper case within "Plot" and "Cast" (it's similar to "Van Alen" and "Van Buren"), and total duration is missing a citation (preferably placed with a mention in the prose though I'd forgive an infobox placement). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the runtime to the end of the production section, unless you have any thoughts on somewhere else it would fit better. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to such a placement, and finally passing this! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.