Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avatar: The Last Airbender

[edit]

Please consider this article as it just lost in the last nomination and I think it has improved enough to be a feature article. jeremybelpois 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are few deficiencies. Though there is some POV, a lot of the seemingly opinion is realy the intended opinion set by the creators of the show. This means that through logical deduction the powers or abilities the animals contain (in your example) are made to amaze the show's audience.
  • Striked as per Parent5446. Problem addressed and completely resolved. (note, only the striked out part.)
  • Comment The {{cite web}} template makes the article too messy as it puts a title, language, etc. about the source. However, I do agree that more citations are needed.
  • At the very least the url, title, and accessdate fields would need values. The more complete the source information the better. Sources aren't there to make the article pretty, they're there to make it verifiable. Jay32183 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I converted the first inline citation, can you handle the rest of those on your own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs)
  • Support I support this article due to that I feel it is superior and it is well-written, unlike what it was four months ago. The only flaws are that there is not a list of the episodes on the page (since there is a seperate article for the epsiodes) and that there are only 19 inline citations. That is not much of a deficiency.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote Due to my extensive editing of all Avatar: The Last Airbender related articles, I refrain from voting on the subject of Bias. I hope that my other editors do the same. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Stretchyrubberbands. --Twlighter 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an editor of the aricle, I belive that this article has improved vastly from last time. (Actually I can't edit the article because McAffee stops the page from coming up completley, but thats another story) Cnriaczoy42 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object Missing a lot of key information. No Production information, no critcal reaction, except for some rewards, no information on it sucess or how popular it is. The subsections in Influence are short, stubby and uneeded. They can easily be one or two sections. Media Information section just lists whats in another article instead of summarizing it in prose (with facts). There is also a citation needed tag. See also section shouldn't have links that are already in the article. All images need fair use rationale. Sokka image has incorrect copyright info. Medvedenko 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does not have to be information on how poplar it is, it is just an article on what the show is about. In addition, there may not be a lot of rsources for some information such as influence and production information. If you can come and find enough resources to write one or two sections of influence, then tell me and you can prove me wrong. Otherwise, a lot of your objection may not be possible to complete. Besides, the purpoose of the article is to draw people in and inform them about the show, not tell them about idols from a religion that influenced the show. The only reason anyone would put that would be for people really researching Avatar: The Last Airbender or to just make the article longer (which is not the point as a literary piece, including an article, only ha to be as long as it takes to make a point, which the article has clearly done).
The article is NOT on what the show is about its about the show. No where in the body of the article (not the intro which only sumarizes what is in the article) does it say when the show aired, how it came about, who created it, where it was animated. All that information may not be available, but some of it is and it must be in there. Same goes for popularity and critical reaction. The article's focus should be on facts outside the show's story. If there is no reference on an Influence than it can't be in the article because that would original research. I said nothing about going into detail about the influences, I just wanted you to merge the subsections in influneces. Every Influence doesn't need its own section when they are only one or two sentences. Medvedenko 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about "how popular" the show is refers not to what fanboys are saying but to the opinions of notable television critics and ratings inforamtion to show how large the audience is. I agree that that type of information should be included in all articles about television shows. Jay32183 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused, why doesn't this work again?
  • Originally slated to start November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV February 21, 2005 and is available on DVD or for download at the iTunes Store and the XBOX Marketplace. Produced at the Nickelodeon Animation Studios in Burbank, California, and animated in South Korea (where many animated television series are animated), it was co-created and executively produced by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko.
  • A consistently high ratings performer in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside of its intended six-to-eleven-year-old demographic, Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics. The series' success prompted Nickelodeon to order a second twenty-episode season, which began airing on March 17, 2006,[1] and a third season has been announced to begin airing in 2007.[2] Notable merchandise based on the series include five DVD sets of episodes, six-inch scale action figures, a video game, stuffed animals distrubited by Paramount Parks, and two Lego sets.[3]
H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Medvedenko, are you by any chance suggesting that we try to make the production information end up like the one in the House article? [1] Or am I completely off the wall in saying that? Whydoit (Strangle Me for My Mistakes) 08:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a section similar to House or other television articles is what I'm getting at. The Introduction shouldn't contain information that isn't found elsewhere in the article. Though I hope you'll be able to find more related information than whats already in the Introduction.Medvedenko 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the sokka problem and the catation needed tag. Will work on free-use images. Cnriaczoy42 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
added Fair Use Rational to all images. Cnriaczoy42 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recent images of Chinese characters do not have Fair Use rationale, but they should not be used anyway since it should be easy to get a free to use symbols. Also the use of lines in the Characters section makes the section look very ugly.Medvedenko 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that those images are not fair use at all, since they are not directly taken from the show, but were made by a Wikipedian, and depict ordinary (albeit archaic) Chinese characters that just happen to be in the show, and were not specifically created for the show itself. But I don't know enough to say for sure. And I really like the lines in the Characters section. I think they divide it up much better than just space, but I guess that's just one opinion. --Herald Alberich 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The images clearly say they are a from a television show. They certainly look like they are from Avatar as well. Same art style. Medvedenko 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Sage of Ice stated on the talk page, they are screenshots after all. My mistake. --Herald Alberich 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Content issues are resolved in my opinion. An issue on the talk page about how Aang learns his skills needs to resolved though. There are two problems left. The Asian characters in Elements still need rationale, but because those characters can be depicted using free images (or just use the Chinese text right next to the image) I'm not sure you can create a rationale. The other problem is the use of the lines in characters. These lines are supposed to be used spraining if at all, and just makes the section look bad. I still think you should merge some of the subsections in Influences, but I will not object on that issue alone. The only thing keeping me from full support is the use of the lines in Characters and the images of the Chinese characters. Medvedenko 00:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support After reading the above I think all we really need to do is re-arrange some of the popularity and influence notes (maybe even elaborating/adding on a few?), but I also think along with H2P that I might only be supporting because of my own personal bias. Other than that the article had com a long way since the last nomination. Whydoit (Strangle Me for My Mistakes) 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: It is a good article, but with the tag about the lead on it, I can only give it my weak support. I believe that the lead is okay, but at the same time I respect the talk page. On the talk page they claim that it does have some shortcomings, and I agree it is not perfect, but this article is still worthy of FA status.-Hairchrm 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've never heard of the show before and so approached the article with a blank slate. I think that for someone in my position, the article gives a pretty good summary of the show. But I think more is needed to make the show a featured article:
    • "Media information" section simply is a link to the daughter page. It should be written to include several paragraphs or two in summary style.
    • There's only two critical reactions listed, and it's a pseudonymous toonzone.net review and a SciFi.com piece, which is probably not sufficient. See The Wire (TV series) and Arrested Development for examples. I would like to know how general TV critics (i.e. those who don't work in a particular genre) have reviewed the show.
    • "However, given that even Spirit-infused characters such as Princess Yue have been shown incapable of bending, there is also a likely genetic factor involved." How does this conclusion follow from that premise?
    • "Also, according to an interview with the artists involved in creating Avatar" not cited.
    • "Zuko's principal rival throughout Book One." What is Book One? What is Book Two?
    • "Avatar also draws on a mix of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Tibetan, Persian, Mongolian, and even Inuit philosophy, religion, language, clothing, martial arts and culture. " Where's the Inuit/Persian/Mongolian influence? The Chinese, Tibetan, etc. are all explained in the article but not the others. Where's the source for them?
That section has been cleaned up a bit.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. Would a "professionally" written nomination have the following bloopers in the lead?
    • "executively produced"—very awkward
    • "outside of" (which one is redundant?)
    • "best rated showing"—hyphenate the first two words
    • "six-inch scale"—metric equivalent is ...?
    • "and now a third season has been announced to begin airing in 2007." When is "now"? In two years' time, will it still be "now"? Replace "to being airing in" with just "for".

The opening sentence is stop-startish: "Avatar: The Last Airbender (also known as Avatar: The Legend of Aang in several countries), an American animated television series, currently airs on the television network Nickelodeon." Make it: "Avatar: The Last Airbender (also known as Avatar: The Legend of Aang in several countries) is an American animated television series that currently airs on the television network Nickelodeon. Tony 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have a crack at it...Whydoit (Why...do it?) 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, even though I think the remedy I put for the "outside of" comment needs work. If anyone feels lke they can do better, feel free.Whydoit (Why...do it?) 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it be known that any vote that doesn't give a reason for it's vote, whether it be support or oppose, should not be counted as anything meaningful. I am so sick of lazy people putting "per X" when X's comment above has been modified in the article but not changed on this vote page. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: it's = it is. There are a lot of these floating around at the moment. I've been asked to review my object that was on the basis of 1a. I've skimmed through the article at random, and am disappointed to easily find a high density of obvious shortcomings, such as:
    • "Like most animated series in recent times, it is animated in South Korea." Problems with the use of present tense (including at the start of "Creation") to refer to something that was created two years ago. Also, make it clear that the animation is not set in recent times: "Like most animated series produced recently".
    • "Avatar took six years to go from an idea to a completed first episode, longer than normally expected." Just "longer than normal" will do. There's redundant wording throughout, which needs to be weeded out by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Here's another, in the very next sentence: "the series was originally set to air at some point in November of 2004"—No, remove "at some point". "Move" would be nicer that "go".
    • And the sentence after that is "Airing of new episodes occur Friday at 8:00 Eastern Standard Time, while airing of reruns occur on weekday evenings." Nope, "THE airing", once only please, not twice. OccurS, not occur. You ellide "on" first, then include it. Does EST refer to the US? If so, say so, because there are lots of other ESTs around the world. And I think you mean FridayS. And why not say "New episodes are first aired on Fridays at 8pm ...." Your 8:00 could mean 8am in 24-hour code. Friday evening IS a weekday evening, or at the least is ambiguous. Too many "airings" in that section.

This suggests that the whole text has still not been copy-edited to the required "professional" standard. Tony 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reworded a bunch of the sections now. Man, the grammar in that paragraph you pointed out was...god-awful. I can't believe I didn't notice it before. Y BCZ 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Just had my first look at this article, and don't understand how it got this far into FAC without basics (such as section headings per WP:MOS and WP:MSH) being corrected. Prose problems already detailed by Tony. Also, referencing is not complete - clicking on a few footnotes at random shows incorrect article names and the like. External links could be pruned - WP:EL, WP:NOT. There is uncited text, which may be WP:OR (example, "The episode, 'The Spirit World' and the two-part first season finale 'Siege of the North' are good examples of this influence, as the former prominently features a corrupted forest spirit attacking a human settlement as a direct result of the destruction of its forest home, while the latter involves the main protagonists trying to prevent the murder of a nature spirit by an ambitious mortal, all of which are also featured in Princess Mononoke.") Not there, surprised that basics weren't reviewed in previous Support votes. Sandy (Talk) 11:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed headings, removed uncited statement. Does it count as original reserch when they said that they were inspired by those two shows a paragraph above and an example is shown? The Placebo Effect 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Most of the information in the article is not referenced in reliable sources independent of the producer. Information about critical response or how it fits into the history of animation and television is also lacking. The majority of the article is a plot summary and character summary. —Centrx→talk • 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why are too many sources from the producers bad? They surely know the most and would provide the best information. The characters shouldn't need citations explaining their traits. Arrested Development doesn't have citations for its characters. Most of the information their too is also on the show and its characters. SO what is the differance between these two articles. And what do you mean by how the critical response fits into the history is lacking? The Placebo Effect 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Carlsbad (2006-01-24). "Article on Launch of Avatar Card Game". PR Newswire. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsitem_no=17250 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Jim Cordeira (2006-08-21). "THQ Announces Games Convention". Gaming Age. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender/archive2&oldid=390565453"