Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)

The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 6, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

Resolved

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Mask (TV special) → The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode) – This is the TV pilot movie/premiere episode of the Goosebumps (TV series), as given on List of Goosebumps episodes#Season 1 (1995–96). Per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles, it should use the series title as disambiguation along with "episode" to distinguish from the Goosebumps book of the same name. Additionally, WP:NCTV does not recommend use of "(TV special)" in any case. -- Netoholic @ 09:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Both "Goosebumps episode" and "TV special" are used by reliable sources to describe it. Since Goosebumps episode is more consistent with the guidelines, I support using it here. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NCTV, and general logic (a pilot is not a TV special; someone doesn't know their media terminology). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A TV pilot could be considered a TV special, depending on the definition of a TV special you use. The Haunted Mask was marketed by Fox as a special, presumably because it aired during a time slot that is normally reserved for other programming. There are also a handful of sources that refer to it as a special (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). That does bring up a good point though, the fact that some would not consider this to be a special is a good reason to consider changing the title of the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you picked up the key word there "marketed". Television specials are an amorphous collection mostly because its a marketing term, not a defined format or genre. In this case, its an episode marketed as a TV special much like how you can have a film like The Wizard of Oz marketed as a special also. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Any point I raise is open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
These are my edits. Any of them can be revised/reverted if you do not like them.
I like them. My only change was correcting a minor typo. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh. Thanks for catching that... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited (#8) for the VHS release date only says the VHS "made its home video debut last week". I suggest adding source #9 to this sentence as well, since it gives the specific date.
Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in 1994, Margaret Loesch, formerly the CEO of Fox Kids," - according to her article, she was still the CEO in 1994. I suggest revising this to "then-CEO", "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time", or some other wording that indicates she wasn't a former CEO in 1994.
Changed to "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time". Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no cocnern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern. AGF for the print/subscription sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I remember the initial broadcast being during primetime, but that may have been a local decision. This detail isn't necessary to pass GA, but it might be something to look into if you plan to improve the article further.
Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There are a few points under 1A that I don't feel comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one looks pretty good. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I made the relevant changes. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

A user keeps removing the image of the VHS without explaining why, so I thought I would start a discussion. MOS:TVIMAGE says that an image can be used for an individual episode article if a home media cover is available for the episode. This is certainly the case here. Not to mention the VHS is discussed in the article as well. I think the image should be kept. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]