Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wishology/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wishology

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after substantial expansion of the article so it covers all material comprehensively (at least to my knowledge), I believe this article is close to ready for a FAC nomination, even though this article never went through GA.

Thanks, 89119 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - I have seen these episodes. There is no requirement that an article go through GAN or even PR before being noiminated at FAC. However, I do not think this is ready yet for FA; here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • I have five main concerns about the article if it were at FAC: the plot section is too long, the article does not have enough independent third-party sources, the article may not be comprehensive enough, the prose, while good, is not up to FA standards, and there are some MOS issues,. I will try to address each concern in turn.
  • WP:FILMPLOT and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary need to be followed more closely in the article. WP:FILMPLOT says in part "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." The plot section here (minus subheaders) is 1,869 words, and the three parts are 640, 597, and 622 words each. I realize it is a trilogy, but the plot is one arc through the three parts and the three parts together are only 1 hour 36 minutes total running time. The three parts together are as long as a feature film, but the plot section is about 2.5 times the maximum recommended length.
    • Done (hopefully) - Condensed the "Plot" section by about 50% in terms of number of words. 89119 (talk)
  • To me the plot section contains a lot of needless detail. For example the sentences Mr. and Mrs. Turner have no recollection of having a son, and Chester, A.J., and Mr. Crocker all refer to him as the "new kid" at school. Timmy shows his completed homework assignment on the Big Dipper, which everyone refuses to acknowledge exists. could be pared down to something like Timmy finds his parents, teacher and classmates do not know him, and none of them has heard of the Big Dipper [on which he did a homework assignment]. I doubt that the part in brackets is needed and would only include the Big Dipper if the plot includes it disappearing later. This goes from 43 words to 21 (or 28 words if the homework part is included).
    • Done (hopefully) - Needless detail removed as part of plot trim. 89119 (talk)
    • Please let me know of any more extraneous information still present in the plot section. 89119 (talk)
      • I saw this once a while ago, so it is a bit hard to decide what should be in and what is not needed. One idea is to ask "Is this plot point necessary to uderstand other parts of the plot or for critical or other commentary elsewhere in the article?". So the areticle should mention Timmy's trilogy wishes in Plot as there is later commentary on them. The Big Dipper was not needed and I see it is gone now. Other details may not ne required - does the reader really need to know that the fairies are hiding in Barstow? Explaining their absence in the beginning of part 1, yes. Saying they are in Barstow (which is not mentioned again in the article) probably not needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned that the article does not have more references to independent third-party sources. There are 40 refs, but 21 (just over half) are either to the studio or the script. Of the 19 third-party refs left, several are for fairly limited pieces of information (things like ratings or the award won or KISS' website)
  • Google News finds several articles on the show - see here At least some of them do not appear to have been used in this article and may be useful sources.
  • One of the FA Criteria is comprehensiveness and the relatively few number of independent third-party sources may also indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. I was surprised that there was no mention of Fairly Oddbaby (the preceding film special) and no comparisons to it or the following special - did this one do better or worse in the ratings, for example. There is also very little on the actual production (who wrote it and that it took 18 months), and not even a mention of Frederator (except in the credits).
    • Done (with Fairly OddBaby part) - Added info on Fairly OddBaby in the ratings part of the "Reception" section. 89119 (talk)
      • I would think that some books on the series would have general information on how it is animated that might be included in this article, but do not know for sure (as I do not have those books myself). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also worry that there is not much in the way of background - if someone comes to the article and has never seen the show and knows nothing about it, I think they would soon be lost. Part of this is that the material needs to be written from more of an out of universe perspective - for example, the reader is never really told who Jorgen is or who the Yugopotamians (sp?) are. See WP:IN-U
    • Done - Provided brief description of Jorgen in the lead and the planet of Yugopotamia (home to Yugopotamians) in the plot. Also expanded more on Fairy World and the Cave of Destiny in the lead. 89119 (talk)
      • Another option that I have sometimes seen for series is a brief background section which explains basic premises of the series so the Plot section does not have to. If there were a Background section, it could have a brief description of Timmy and his fairy godparents and their new baby, an explanation of who Jorgen and the Yugopotamians are, etc. Your call, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also seems odd that there are only critical comments from two reviewers (but if that is all there is ...)
  • There is a free picture of Butch Hartman - why not include that in this article (and perhaps cut the image of George Lucas)? I just checked and there is also a free image of Tara Strong - I would include images of people who actually worked on this show.
    • What's the best place in the article to place a picture of Butch Hartman (and how should it be captioned?) I also think the George Lucas image should still remain; I'm modeling this article from Family Guy FA-article "Road to the Multiverse", which has an image of Walt Disney in its "Cultural references" section. 89119 (talk)
      • I would put Hartman's picture in the Production section (just like Road to the Multiverse has Seth McFarlane's photo there). I would move KISS down to Cultural references if need be. One thing to think of is that articles that are FA appear on the Main Page, but fair use images do not. I doubt the KISS or Lucas images would work on the Main Page but Hartman's would. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most difficult FA Criterion for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. The prose here is decent but has enough rough spots that it would be a problem at FAC.
  • Many FA reviewers do not like verb + ing constructions - so The Kiss members reveal they are the galactic protectors of the white wand, asking Timmy to prove he is the chosen one in order to wield it.
    • Done - Removed as many "verb + ing"s as possible. 89119 (talk)
  • Two more examples
    • Series creator and executive producer Butch Hartman wrote Wishology, along with head writer Scott Fellows and Kevin Sullivan, who had joined the series since its fifth season.[1] I think the last phrase means "who joined the series after its fifth season" though it might be supposed to mean he joined in the fifth season and has bee with the series since. if you can't tell what a sentence means, it is not well written.
      • Done 89119 (talk)
      • Is "who has joined the series after its fifth season" also acceptable? Because Kevin Sullivan is still currently a writer for the series, which suggests a present perfect sentence case. 89119 (talk)
    • On February 6, 2010 at UCLA's Royce Hall, music composer Guy Moon became the recipient of an Annie Award for his music in "The Big Beginning" in the "Individual Achievement Category" of "Music in a Television Production" during the 37th Annual Annie Awards.[3][40] Does the reader need to know where the awards were held? Even if they do, is that so important that it should come before Moon's name in the sentence? Can't he just be a composer (not a music composer - what other kind of composer is there)? Do we need to know it was the 37th Annual Annie Awards? How about something like Composer Guy Moon won [received?] an Annie Award for his music in "The Big Beginning" in the "Individual Achievement Category" of "Music in a Television Production" on February 6, 2010.[3][40]
  • Several little MOS issues. References should be in numerical order.
    • Done (hopefully) - I only found one set of refs in backwards numerical order; I changed from [18][13][5] to [5][13][18]. 89119 (talk)
    • Please let me know if any other issues are still present. 89119 (talk)
  • Dab finder tool in the toolbox on this PR page finds a diambiguation link
  • the 95th-100th episodes uses a hyphen when it should use an en-dash - by the way, the lead says this is three movies and six episodes, but that is never really made clear (and the infobox has three production codes, not six)
    • Done (hopefully) - Changed from hyphen to en-dash. Clarified lead (well, removed the six episodes implication part). 89119 (talk)
    • Does the infobox need to display six production codes? I thought there were only three, each production code is for each one-hour part of the trilogy. 89119 (talk)
      • The lead said it was six episodes, so I assumed each episode had its own production code. In general, I think details like this are better in the body of the article and the lead can be less specific. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little things like all caps on The in this ref THE Fairly Oddparents: Wishology". TV Guide. Retrieved 2011-05-30.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Wishology/archive1&oldid=1078792230"