Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest/archive5

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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

Nominator(s): ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longtime candidate article; just needs a nudge over the finish line. It's been peer reviewed and nominated a few times, and was reviewed by 5 copyeditors this summer (adding to my own revisions). Last FAC died due to sheer inactivity, so let me know if I can look at any articles in exchange for a gander at this one. Thanks! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per previous Fasach Nua (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has reviewed the images and removed the fair-use template. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's bogus. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by last ref is a bare url Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the original reference. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 20:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: A number of issues:-

Ref 12 Daily Variety, not formatted as other refs to this source

Publisher had been omitted; fixed.

Ref 16: what is "Kidscreen"?

A magazine. The last FAC attempts/copyedits weeded out all uses of "magazine" after magazine titles that don't actually have the word in the title. I can't find the relevant part of the MoS; should magazine be included?

Ref 17: What does Fanfare refer to?

Same here.

Ref 23: The link on "Tacoma" is inappropriate as this is a part of the newspaper's name rather than a reference to the city. Same point in 57, and maybe others.

Fixed that, also found cases of that in 56, 57, and 94.

Ref 24: Who are the publishers of Supermarket News?

Penton Media; fixed.

Ref 28: The publisher of this source is Questfan.com, not Hanna-Barbera. Questfan.co is a fansite; what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

Ref 35: Who publishes Children's Business?

Fairchild Publications, Inc.; fixed.

Ref 40: This, too, is Questfan
Refs 41 and 42: Why different formats for the same source?

The "Rushes" article had no byline, so no author was credited.

Ref 55: You are citing a video. To what does the isbn refer?

The video really has an ISBN number.

Ref 59 is another Questfan site.
Refs 61, 62: What does Elctronic Media refer to? The link goes to the WP article that describes electronic media in general terms

I think there used to be a stub for that magazine, but it's long gone. Delinked those.

Ref 74, 75: Questfan
Ref 88: Questworld: please check the link to this source. The click-ons are all failed or unavailable connections. Why is the source reliable, and where does it support the cited sentence?
Ref 89: same thing

The links should (and on my connection) point to the Wayback machine's archived versions of the two sourced pages. The Wayback machine can have fickle connections sometimes. This one demonstrates that the pages are written from the perspective of the fictional characters ("Hi everyone! I'm Jessie Bannon. I've been doing a lot of work (with Hadji and Jonny) to make Questworld available to you over the World Wide Web, and I'm excited that you can visit our home pages now."). This one demonstrates that the page hosted educational material for kids ("Archaeology means learning about people from the things they've left behind (called 'artifacts'). Sometimes, when people lived a long time ago, this is the only way we can know anything about them.").

Refs 92, 93: Galoob.com. Why is this a reliable source?

Galoob was a notable, multi-million dollar toys retailer that sold Quest merchandise. The sources are pages on Galoob's old website that demonstrate merchandise's marketing.

Ref 133: Questfan

Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the Questfan points, I'm going to break form and reply within the list due to its size. Now, for QuestFan:

28 is the Writer's Bible for the show, developed by Peter Lawrence and Glenn Leopold. As discussed in a prior FAC, it would be sufficient to simply source Hanna-Barbera itself and drop the QuestFan link. The link is simply there as an accommodation for those who wish to read the full bible and find it off-site. I can remove the link; my philosophy for having it relates back to WP:VG's use of convenience links for translation of Japanese material for English Wikipedia. While we source the Japanese publication, we often include an English source link as a convenience for readers.
40 is Francois Lord's commentary, which he self-published on an AOL newsgroup in 1996. The newsgroup is long-dead, though Lord can still be reached through his personal website. While this source is a bit shaky, if at all possible (whether through recorded correspondence with Francois Lord) I'd love to keep it, because it's an irreplaceable source for part of the QuestWorld section. Other sources prove that Buzz F/X had financial and production troubles due to the show's production, but Lord's commentary provides a couple specifics. If there's any way to keep this in, it'd definitely help the article's quality.
59 is a pure convenience link like 28, and can be removed if too extraneous. The direct source is the press kit itself, published by Hanna-Barbera (but unavailable except to collectors, thus the convenience link).
74, 75 are both self-published (again, on the AOL The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest newsgroup) pieces by Lance Falk, season two writer. They're very helpful as a convenience link to his direct remarks, as the original AOL newsgroup postings have long since been lost. Lance Falk is very, very easily reached (he recently submitted the free-use picture used in that section of the article) and is happy to clarify anything if needed.
133 is a bit deprecated; Lawrence has since expressed this sentiment in the DVD interview. Replaced the link. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 01:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support because I can't remember if I did last time, but I should. Four fair-use images in one article can be appropriate, just like one in one article cannot, if it doesn't fit. The prose is written well enough for FA standards, and I now know a lot more about the show that I watched like once. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --Pres N 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Support- if the fansites and questionable refs User:Brianboulton mentions check out.

I think my biggest issue is the DVD release section should be integrated into the development section somehow.
The other big thing is that Companies and Products & Country and Broadcaster table shouldn't be hidden as it causes accessability issues.
I also think most of those citations in the lead could be removed per WP:LEADCITE.陣内 _Jinnai 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; implemented all concerns. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query - What is the status of the Questfan and other sourcing issues? --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops; forgot to leave a message at his talk page. There. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jogging my memory. I've been through the sources again, and am happy to accept your responses. I still field that the titles of relatively unknown magazines should have (magazine) added to the title, whatever earlier FAC comments might have said, but it's not a sticking point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good anyhow; added "magazine" to a few cases. Found some issues of page numbers not having the page = template attribute either, all fixed. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very impressive work. I made a few prose tweaks while reading, but the writing quality overall is impeccable. While I watched this show a few times when I was younger, I don't remember it being advertised so heavily. And I had no idea that it was such a mess behind the scenes. Extremely informative article, and I see no reason why anyone could reasonably oppose its promotion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been watching this one for a few FACs, and I'm ready to support this now. I read through it a few times, and nothing is jumping out at me now that you've cleaned up the refs. I did not do any checking for plagiarism, but ZeaLitY articles always have a certain... "tone" to them, (I think it's your adjective choices) and this article has that tone throughout, with no suspicious shifts. --Pres N 23:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.