Talk:Littlest Pet Shop (2012 TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The company had produced an earlier animated show based on Littlest Pet Shop in 1995" Which? Hasbro or Kenner?
  • Hasbro (as Kenner, but that was before they retired the division outright). Expanded and added a source to clarify this. 23W
• "Serving as both executive producers and story editors, Julie McNally-Cahill and Tim Cahill developed Littlest Pet Shop, joining Hasbro Studios in September 2011" A question about chronology- this implies that they had developed Littlest Pet Shop before joining Hasbro; if they developed it afterwards, you should say "developed Littlest Pet Shop, having joined Hasbro"
  • Good point: adjusted. 23W
• "Serving as both executive producers and story editors, Julie McNally-Cahill and Tim Cahill developed Littlest Pet Shop, joining Hasbro Studios in September 2011.[b] Additionally working as executive producers on Littlest Pet Shop are Chris Bartleman and Kirsten Newman.[5]" I'm not really keen on the second sentence; could this be rephrased?
  • Attempted. 23W
• "based on their 2010 introduction of" Whose? Hasbro's?
  • Hasbro's; clarified. 23W
• "The Cahills convinced the studio of their idea of contemporaneous pet stores, most of which provide grooming and day care services." This is a bit awkward
  • Tinkered with. 23W
• "so the Cahills took to build the human character's world" I don't understand
  • Rephrased as, "so the Cahills sought to expand the human character's fictional universe".
• "While the show is aimed at a demographic of girls, Julie said that she and the writers attempt to cater to boys and parent viewers simultaneously." What sort of age are we talking about?
  • Clarified. 23W
• "Different from the other Hasbro properties Ball had worked on, she explained that Hasbro sought to have the comic as entertaining rather than morally didactic." This is a little difficult to follow; I think it could be rephrased
  • Attempted. 23W
• Is "conceit" the right word?
  • Replaced with structure, though genre might be the proper term there. 23W
• Just a little thing, but where are the references for the DVD releases? I'm not too concerned about this (they can act as their own reference!), but if you have some handy...
  • Instead of references, I've added a column for Amazon product IDs. It might look unorthodox, but when most of these tables reference Amazon en masse it's less cluttered this way. The Region 2 and 4 tables are redundant to Region 1 (they all copy from Shout!) so I've removed them. 23W
• Could we have some text in the online shorts section? I also note that your "main article" link points at a section that does not exist.
  • Removed outright, as no secondary sources seem to mention them anywhere. 23W
• What makes Bleeding Cool reliable? The Intent Media Network?
  • Licensing.biz is now owned by NewBay Media, which publishes reliable trade magazines and websites; I've updated the reference. Can't say how reliable Bleeding Cool is but since it's a primary source I think WP:ABOUTSELF permits its use. 23W

This is a strong article. Great sourcing, appropriate real-world focus, well-balanced coverage, professional tone. A nice model for how to write about topics like this. I'll be happy to promote once you have dealt with the issues above. Also, please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How funny- I wasn't aware of ever having heard of Littlest Pet Shop, but I just saw it listed on Pop when we were scrolling through the channels for some background noise... Right after MLP, appropriately enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Yeah, a lot of folks think that it tries hard to follow in MLP's footsteps, but when both topics are equally the source of cruft we might as well do readers a favor. Thanks for the review! I've applied most of your suggestions above. 23W 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask you to add the region 2 and region 4 releases back? I think they were valuable. Even if they are identical, they are very much a separate release. It also mitigates a potential American focus. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, do you have any information on the intended demographic? I get that it's girls, but that could be anything from babies to toddlers to children to preteens to teens- what is the particular target audience? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Sorry for the dead air, this week has been a rush for me. I'll have these suggestions done by the end of this week if you don't mind deferring the deadline. 23W 07:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem- take as long as you need. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I think I've addressed these issues (finally!). Thanks again for all your input. 23W 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just being picky now (the article's looking great!) but could we have ASINs for the Region 4 releases? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Region 4 releases aren't available on Amazon, so I referenced the DVD publish for the release date table header. Hopefully that's just as good for verifiability. 23W 03:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, happy to promote at this time. A nice little article- a very valuable resource for people who want to learn about this show. You should be proud of it! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)