Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Peer review/Archive

2011

Cartoon Network

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this may be reached to GA or FA. It is television network that was launched in 1992. However, I need a feedback for the peer review on the network.

Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I commend you for your work on this article, I will look at it from a GA criteria perspective. You'll want to come back for an FAC review once it passes GAC.

Lead

• Your writing has a lot of adverbs like "originally" "primarily" "mainly", these aren't necessary. Sometimes they have a place but they also clutter up the prose and many of them can be removed.
• Third cable channel behind disney and nick. Third in what? Kids' programming? It's not clear.
• Overall in the lead the writing is choppy and needs to be streamlined. Here's an example:

• "Since 2009, it began airing a small amount of live-action programming, specifically movies from Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema, both of which are also owned by Time Warner." Rewrite like this, "In 2009 it started airing live-action programming, including movies from Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema." No one cares that they're owned by Time Warner.

I've fix the issue. Some movie were carried from 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures which are not owned by Time Warner. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• See WP:LEAD for instructions on what should be in a good lead. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and this lead should be enhanced to include every subject within the article (written in a summary style).

History

• The clean up banner is legitimate and should be addressed. Usually clean up banners should be handled before the article is listed at WP:PR. I can see a number of templates in the following sections. These should be addressed and the sourcing improved.
• As a general rule every paragraph should have at least one source, and more if there are multiple assertions.
• See WP:INCITE for reference anchor placement. They don't go in the middle of the sentence but rather at the end unless the assertion is very controversial.
• The parenthetical reference in the first sentence is too detailed. Give a few examples of what was acquired and leave it at that.
• Watch out for one sentence paragraphs. These stubs are not acceptable at GAC. Consider combining or expanding.
• Make sure titles are always italicized even when not linked.
• What is meant by the "Powerhouse era"? What is powerhouse music?

Programming

• This is a section with no prose. Not good. Sections with just a tophat are unnecessary. Either add some prose or remove the section. I think you fold in most of the programming info in the previous section.

Related projects

• Here is a section "Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall" see above.

References

• The key to references is consistency. Make sure every website ref has at least the title, url, publisher, and accessdate.
• You probably want to use templates like {{cite web}} to help with consistency.
• Deviantart appears to be a blog or discussion forum. This is not a credible reference. See WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for instructions on credible references. Avoid blogs, forums, chat rooms, social networking sites etc.

Overall

• As stated above the article needs a lot more referencing. This will be a major sticking point if you want it to pass GAC. * I would also seek out someone who can do a thorough copy edit.
• There isn't much about the financing of the channel, advertising revenue, demographics that sort of thing. It would be nice to see some more information on these topics.
• This concludes my review. Please contact me on my talk page if you have specific questions. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Courage the Cowardly Dog

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this may be reach to Good article standards. I've almost written about 80% of the article's contents including the citations. Any comments are welcome here. If have any concerns, please contact on my talk page. The things I do for love!

Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 04:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow what a nice article, very informative. As a self-confessed citation nut, all I can say is that I'd like to see a citation for:

• "As of 2011, all 52 episodes are in reruns on Cartoon Network and Boomerang." in the lead,
• At least one citation in the Overview section,
• "A total of fifty-two episodes were produced in four seasons. The series originally ran from November 12, 1999 and ended on November 22, 2002." in the broadcast section
• citations for the statements in the broadcast history,
• Citations for the other releases section

All this information had to have come from somewhere LOL, Cheers and great work! Keetanii (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. At least someday I should get into GA or FA standards for one day. :) JJ98 (Talk) 05:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• General

WP:ALT may be added to images.

• Lead

"The segment was nominated for an Academy Award[1]" -> no citation in the lead, the information is supposed to be below

"The series premiered on November 12, 1999, ran for four seasons, and ended on November 22, 2002." -> Personal comment: I'd reworded it as "The series, which premiered on November 12, 1999, ran for four seasons, ending on November 22, 2002." or something similar

"As of 2011, all 52 episodes are in reruns on Cartoon Network and Boomerang." -> too short for an own paragraph

I feel that it is too short, it summarize its content?

• Overview

This section is extremely similar to this, especially "Courage the Cowardly Dog revolves around the exploits of Courage, a small, fuchsia dog who, despite his name, is afraid of the most mundane things". I recommend you to use your own words and avoid this because it can be seen as a copyright violation.

"greedy farmer who harasses Courage. He usually harasses Courage" -> redundant

• Production

Courage the Cowardly Dog began -> since, as far as I know, it was not intended to be a series, another verb would be better, such as "created" or "intended"

a de facto pilot -> a de facto pilot

"(in a still-later episode, the single-bodied, triple-headed sons of the alien chicken attempt revenge, but only because their mother won't let them in the house until they kill Courage[4])." does not reads encyclopedic.

"the short was nominated for an Academy Award.[1]" -> which award?

"The studio produced 4 seasons with 13 episodes in each season until the last original airing on November 22, 2002." -> unsourced

"Original music featured in Courage the Cowardly Dog...several weeks to compose.[7]" -> This paragraph is apparently based in one source. Two things a) is this source reliable? I believe it is not, and b) are this paragraph sourcing all the paragraph?

• Broadcast history

Unsourced section

• Episodes

"A total of fifty-two episodes were produced in four seasons. The series originally ran from November 12, 1999 and ended on November 22, 2002." -> already mentioned and unsourced here as well

• References to Dilworth

Dilworth -> overlinked

a delivery truck -> unsourced unlike the others

which references him.[11] -> redundant

"Often a caricature of himself (named Dilly) can be seen in the background, e.g. a portrait of himself hangs on the Bagges' wall by the stairs and on a milk container with the missing person's question "Have you seen me?" written underneath" -> unsourced

• Reception

imaginative - they -> imaginative—they

CGI -> link it

• References

Reference 4 needs more information per {{cite episode}}

Reference 7 is incomplete

Reference 8, 20, 21, 22 are unreliable sources

• External links

Courage the Cowardly Dog Wiki, hosted by Wikia -> WP:ELNO

This is one of my favourite animated shows, ans unfortunately, its main problem is sourcing. There are many unsourced statements, and some unreliable references. Also, it does not meet the WP:GA?´points 2 and 3. An example of an animated TV show which is a GA is South Park. Use this articl as an example of the work missed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank for your concern Tbhotch, I will began remove shortly. JJ98 (Talk) 05:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like suggestions for improving this article in any way possible. I'm one of the major contributors to this article and it would make me happy to see it upgraded to GA status.

Thanks, Paper Luigi ^{Talk • Contributions} 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Hi, I've done a review of this article's structure and language but not a source review. Generally the article is good but it suffers from some indiciations of OR and synthesis; please see my inline comments in this diff. Below are some further comments:

• The lead currently doesn't summarise the article as it omits mention of Reception and Other media. "The series was been nominated for X Emmy Awards and Y Annie Awards during its run. Spin-off media include a feature film, an anime, as well as various licensed merchandise." should be suitable.
• Overview section should come before History section to give the reader a grounding in what the article is about.
• Please look through the prose of the article and pick out redundancies in the text; e.g. "The girls are frequently called upon by the town's childlike mayor, who will then request the girls to help fight nearby criminals using their powers." is fine without the italicised text.
• The History section jumps around quite a lot and isn't focused on the things it should be; the broadcast of the pilot is in parentheses for some reason and mention of the animation studio is relegated to the penultimate sentence.
• Did merchandising actually "encompass everything" or is this just hyperbole?
• Moving on to the Overview section, the entire paragraph about the location of Townsville is unsourced and constitutes orignal research. I doubt there is much in the way of reliable third party text on this subject but if there is you could incorporate that. Likewise the sentence regarding the animation style and comparisons to other series is unsourced.
• Characters section. Big pool of OR. It's very difficult to describe a fictional character's personality traits using episodes directly because there is always the chance of running into synthesis, e.g. "She is often seen as the most mature, level-headed, and composed member of the group, although she can at times be fussy, overbearing, petty, and too analytical." Are there any descriptions of the characters in reliable sources? Does the creator talk about their personalities at all?
• Reception is scant on the reviews, most likely these two were all that could be found on Google? If so, you could try asking at WT:TV if anyone has access to Newsbank or a similar database. Some further reviews may turn up. Nice work with the awards table. This should be sortable per WP:ACCESS and the years should have their own column.
• Other media: The last sentence of the anime section is unsourced and contains a time-dependent word ("currently" - is that currently now or currently six months ago?) and the Film section is unsourced.

Overall it's not a bad read. The groundwork is there for a successful GA but the prose and referencing need working on quite a lot. WP:GOCE may be able to help with prose. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been one or two months since the article was at peer review, and I was hoping if you could help me find newly emerged problems in the article that would prevent it from getting to FA. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two dead external links here

Recommend including this critique in critical reception section. Selery (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• To meet the FA requirements the article has to use only reliable sources - what makes this a WP:RS? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The site publishes established journalists subject to editorial supervision and has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Please ask on WP:RSN if you have further questions. Selery (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good, but I think the language is still a little too rough to have an easy time of it at FAC. I will try to point out as many examples of places where the prose could be polished or other issues as I can.

• Where possible, avoid passive voice and flip it to active voice. SOme passive is OK, but active is almost always more concise and usually more interesting. In the lead The series is produced by Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions). could be something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series. Or it could even be combined with the previous sentence (It is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.) to give something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series, which is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.
• Four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Faust" or "Lauren Faust" - again switching the first sentence to active voice "Hasbro selected Lauren Faust..." would help here too.
• Seems a bit too certain as to the reasons why Reasons for this unintended appreciation include Faust's creative contribution to the writing and characterization... Perhaps something like "Reasons cited for this unintended appreciation..."?
• Could the first sentence of Origins give the year MLP started? [Since YEAR], Hasbro, Inc. has produced several generations of toys and entertainment related to the My Little Pony franchise...
• Avoid needless repetition The animated cartoon series My Little Pony Tales, produced in 1992, was the toy line's most recent television series before Friendship Is Magic, and it featured the pony designs of the first generation.[3][4] Does the sentence need both animated and cartoon (wouldn't either one suffice)? Does the sentence need the word series twice? Perhaps something like My Little Pony Tales (2002) was the toy line's most recent animated television series before Friendship Is Magic; it featured first-generation pony designs.
• MOS says that images should draw the reader's eyes into the article - the photo of Lauren Faust is looking the wrong way (out of the article)
• Tweak / tighten this to something like Senior Vice President Linda Steiner stated that they "intended to have the show appeal to a larger" demographic, with a central theme of the Hub's programming being parents "co-viewing" with their children.[8]
• First sentence of Production does not need to say "(formerly Studio B)" as this was expalined in the previous paragraph
• Move last phrase earlier Though Studio B performed this animation work initially, [in the later part of Season 1 and beyond] the final steps of creating the animation were passed to Top Draw Animation in the Philippines, an animation studio that Studio B had worked well with in the past, in the later part of Season 1 and beyond.[14]
• MOSIMAGE also says not to sandwich text between two images - in Production the photo of Thiessen could be moved lower to avoid this.
• Any more details on why Faust left?
• This sounds contradictory Near the end of the first season, Faust announced that she had left the show, and for season two she stepped down as Executive Producer, to become Consulting Producer. The phrase "left the show" makes it sound as if she was completely gone, but then it says she was still Executive Producer, and is still Consulting Producer.
• OK, I will just poiint out MOS issues - see if WP:GOCE or someone listed at WP:PR/V under copyedits can help.
• Who is the sister? Celestia reappears, reunites with her sister,... See WP:WAF and WP:PCR
• Cutie Mark Crusaders info in Charatcers is a bit repetitious (already in Premise)
• Article refers to "as of September 2011" a few times but it is now 4 months later - can this be updated?
• Episodes section needs a ref too
• Needs some sort of date / year for context Shannon Chan-Kent, the singing voice performer for the character Pinkie Pie, has begun recording for an upcoming third season.[1]
• I would be explicit that TV-Y is ages 2 and up. The series is rated TV-Y (designed for a very young audience).
• Really awkward The series is or will be available in the following languages, sorted in chronological order of debut. The series is or will be automatically available in countries wherever the following television channels are broadcast.
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as much as possible - Toys and merchandise is one sentence - could it be combined with something else?\
• Watch tenses in Critical reception - some critics' views are present tense (Todd VanDerWerff of the A.V. Club favorably notes ...) others are past tense (Kathleen Richter of Ms. believed that...)
• OK, will stop for now

• 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 _><>°^° 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Toy Story

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has passed GA for over a year now and I intend to take this up to FA status at least.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Lead

• "Although the film was a huge box office success, the film is currently Pixar's lowest grossing film while the film's second sequel Toy Story 3 is their highest grossing film earning over $1 billion worldwide". Need a comma after both mentions of film.
• "View-Master released a three-reel set in 3D in 1995 prior to release of 3D films." Needs a comma in here.

Plot

• "Woody, a pull-string cowboy doll is the leader of a group of toys that belong to a boy named Andy and come to life whenever humans are not around." Needs a comma after doll and Andy.
• "Andy's next door neighbor (until his family moved) Sid Phillips has been kicked out of summer camp earlier and Woody explains to Buzz that Sid is a person who tortures and destroys toys just for fun." ...And after Phillips.

Animation

• I would try and find a citation for the $20 million advertising budget.

Theme Park Attractions

• The Disneyland Park link for the Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters attraction is a redirect to a disambig page. Link to the correct park.

References

• 23, 26, 28, 32, 37, 44 are all dead links and need to be removed, replaced, or found in an archive.

I know its not much but i hope this helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2012

Dexter's Laboratory

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the article to GA status or above. It has not been reviewed in a few years and is overdue for one because it has undergone much change since the last one.

Thanks, Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The sentence "52 episodes and a television movie" starts with a bare number. You should avoid this by either rephrasing (preferable) or spelling out the number (less preferable)
  •  Done
• "Responsible for a change in direction for Cartoon Network, Dexter's Laboratory became the channel's most popular and successful original animated series, receiving high ratings and positive reception.": I suggest turning this around to make it more direct: "Dexter's Laboratory became the Cartoon Network's most popular and successful original animated series, and led to a change in direction for Cartoon Network. The show achieved high ratings and had a positive reception."
  •  Done
• "(often by pushing the wrong button on an invention)": This includes the second appearance of "often" in the sentence. I'd suggest perhaps using "for example" instead: "(by pushing the wrong button on an invention, for example)"
  •  Done
• "Dexter's arch-nemesis, a boy from his school named Mandark who lives down the block from Dexter and has a secret laboratory of his own.": this sentence doesn't have a verb. I think you want to say "Dexter's arch-nemesis is a boy..."
  •  Done
• "Dexter's Laboratory was responsible for Cartoon Network's change in direction because of the way the show was designed and directed.": This is too vague when first introduced. We need to say how the show was responsible for the network's change in direction, and what, precisely, that change was.

• UPA should be spelled out on first reference.
  •  Done
• "The show was also notable in its unique sense of design and space and for the sharp timing.": This leaves numerous questions unanswered. I advise being more specific about what this "sense of design and space" was (are we referring to the discussion from the previous sentences?) Also, "sharp timing" doesn't mean much. Comedic timing? Timing of what? And I suggest removing "unique" since it doesn't add anything to the meaning.

• "In terms of design it made very little attempt to recreate reality.": This does not mean much to me. It's a cartoon. Nobody expects it to recreate reality.
  •  Done
• "Genndy said the character design for Dexter was made to be more of an icon.": More of an icon than what? And an "icon" in what sense? Like Elvis is an icon or a small picture on your computer's desktop is an icon?

• "Genndy, in terms of style for the show,": Remove "in terms of style for the show"
  •  Done
• "Tartakovsky noted that he tried to make Dexter and Dee Dee, as well as other characters, move in their own stylized animation.": What does "move in their own stylized animation" mean? It reads like gibberish to me.
  •  Done
• "original run from 1996 to 1998, and was followed by the television movie" --> "which was followed by" etc.
  •  Done
• "The segment "Dial M for Monkey: Barbequor", aired during the first season, was banned shortly after its first broadcast in the United States, due to featuring a character called the Silver Spooner": First, who banned it? The U.S. does not generally ban things of this sort. And it should be "because it featured a character..." etc.
  •  Done
• "the middle segment would have centered around characters" --> "the middle segment centered around characters"
  •  Done
• The "Recurring segments" section needs more citation. It looks like there's some WP:OR in there, i.e. "The segment's title likely derives from the DC Comics superhero organization The Justice League" (who says so?)

• The article has no huge issues, and it shouldn't be much trouble getting it up to GA standards. It's almost there. All you need to do, I think, is make some improvements to the language here and there and explain better how the show caused the Cartoon Network to change direction -- and what that direction was. Don't make vague statements that aren't supported by an ensuing explanation. The citation issues need to be addressed, too. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I fixed some things. Will work on some of the harder stuff in a bit :) Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dream of the Rarebit Fiend

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last while greatly expanding, reorganizing and fully referencing it with the intention of submitting it for FA.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is fascinating stuff, and well-written too.

• "24-year-old McCay had married 14-year-old wife": We'll have to say "a 14-year-old woman". It would be nice if we could name her and discuss, however briefly, how they met or the circumstances of their marriage, given that her youth makes it seemingly unusual.

Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Originally, McCay had conceived" --> "McCay originally conceived" works a little better, I think.

Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend putting a period after this bit where there's currently an em dash, separating it into two sentences.

Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "in the originally proposed strip, a "dope stick" fiend finds himself at the North Pole, unlike to secure a cigarette and a light.": Recommend removing "originally" to avoid repetition. Also I think "unlike" should be "unable".

Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Typically, the strip would begin": Recommend converting this and what follows to the past instead of the past conditional, so "Typically, the strip began" ... "which progressively became" ... "Some situations were merely silly" ... "Other times, they were more disturbing" ... "characters found themselves" ... "a child's mother was planted and became a tree" ... "In some strips, the Fiend was spectator". Also, there's a period where one isn't needed after "dismembered or buried alive (from a first-person perspective)"

In these cases, "would" is not the conditional but the Imperfective aspect (describing something done habitually). —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1905, McCay would have the character" --> "had the character" etc.

Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "with characters sometimes referring to McCay's alterego "Silas", and (more rarely) to the reader": Rephrase per WP:PLUSING. Easiest way would be to make it a separate sentence.

Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "Background" section I think should include the number of strips McKay drew.

I'm not sure if there is a count for this—he did a lot of one-shot and other short-lived strips. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The rest of it looks ok. Now some broader comments:

• We don't discuss in too much depth how the strip was received at the time of its publication. It may be good, if possible, to get in some of that. We get that it was a success, but given its unusual themes I thought maybe there were some more detailed reactions to include. Was it shocking to audiences of the time?

• I think it would be nice if the Overview section had a firmer chronological footing. Did the strips evolve and become more surreal/bizarre over the years? When were the strips discussed in this section published? Also, are any of the strips cited as McKay's best or most significant? If so, I think it would be useful to include a description of these.

• I've seen a couple hundred of the strips (they're all out of copyright and are available online), and the strip seems to have been pretty bizarre from the get-go. I can't say that it got any weirder, and none of my sources say anything on the subject.
• There are many sources that talk about specific strips, but (in the sources I have access to) none of them are really referred to as "best of"-type strips. McCay is typically seen as being prolifically full of ideas, producing multiple strips simultaneously as well as his animation and "chalk talks". It always seems to me that different strips are used to illustrate articles on Rarebit Fiend, so there don't seem to be any that are "canonical".
• I'll see what I can do about some of the dates. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The article looks to be in good shape. I think with some massaging it should be ready for a GA review and eventually FA. If you want to get to FA, I think it's going to have to be a bit more comprehensive, i.e. it should contain more granular detail about the history of the strip's publication and which of the strips were most important. I also think the "Legacy" section could go into more detail; it seems at the moment that its influence is mostly indirect. In other words, the producers of King Kong weren't directly inspired by the strip. But perhaps there were other cases where it was cited as an influence. I hope this helps.

The influence does appear to be mostly indirect. McCay's Little Nemo was a far greater success, appeared (in full colour!) in a newspaper with a far greater circulation, and has been comprehensively collected many times. Most people who are aware of Rarebit today found out about it through Nemo. As a result, it's something of a connoisseur's strip, for people already well familiar with McCay's other work. Of course, I'll include anything I can find, but Rarebit doesn't tend to receive quite as in-depth scholarship as Nemo does (with the exception of Merkl's $140 book, which I am unable to get my hands on. I've asked at WP:CMC about it, but have gotten no response). —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

--Batard0 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Futurama

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I know the article is not yet perfect, but it is (in my opinion) in a much better shape than when previously reviewed as a GA/FA candidate. As it is a large article, I'd like to know what specific areas are worth focusing on.

Thanks, Dorsal Axe 11:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade51 comments -- I think the article has a long way to go before it can be nominated for a WP:FAC. Some areas, such as 'Setting' and 'Themes' are well-written but a lack of citations in certain areas and prose problems lets it down. I've only skim read and below are the main concerns/ideas:

• For inspiration, I suggest taking a look at other WP:FAC's related to the topic. The obvious, of course being The Simpsons.
• Ask yourself this: does WP:LEAD provide a summary of the show? Does "In March 2011, it was announced that Futurama has been renewed for a seventh season, consisting of at least 26 episodes, scheduled to air in 2012 and 2013", really need to be included in the lead?
• Would be nice if someone could find a picture of David Herman.
• Under 'Opening sequence', "This was first trialled in the opening sequence for "Mars University", however it was realised", should it be 'realized' because it's an American program → American English?
• Under 'Cancellation and revival': "Groening and Cohen wanted Futurama to be shown at 8:30", 8:30 am? pm?
• Under 'setting' why is New New York italicised in the second sentence, but not in the first. I know it's to stress the passive voice but WP:CONSISTENCY
• Crossbred does not need to be hyphenated.
• "In the French dubbing of the show, German is used as the extinct language instead.", source for that?
• 'International broadcast' could have some prose above the table, providing a summary of Futurama in other countries. Needs to be fully sourced where applicable. There is an extra column in the table I think.
• "Journalist/critic Frank Lovece" → Journalist and critic Frank Lovece...
• Is there a series summary table, like The_Simpsons#Broadcast? Perhaps you could follow that layout.
• Likewise, is there a page for awards and nominations? Instead of listing all in this article, it could be summarized.
• With references, be consistent with the date format; is it 15-04-2012 or 15 April 2012?
• Is Ref 74 a reliable source?
• Ref 77 is a YouTube link and therefore can't be considered a reliable source. There could be a copyright problem; see WP:YT for more information.
• For Ref 99, the work is 'BBC Cult' and the publisher is 'BBC'. I notice it was published in 2002, not 2001.
• Refs 120, 121 and 122 look like barelinks.
• Two dablinks need fixing.
• Three dead links. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want opinions on what people think about this article being a featured article.

Thanks, Mickey798 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Well done in producing this comprehensive account of an enduring character. I think, though, that before the article is ready for a full prose review, a few general issues need to be addressed:

• Citations: One of the sections has a "citations needed" tag, and there is eveidence that other parts of the article are light on citations; for example, I note a number of paragraphs not ending with a reference. This aspect needs attending to.
• Images: The article at present has 10 non-free images of Mickey. That, in my view, is way beyond anything intended by the Wikimedia "fair use" policy, particularly as many of the images are quite similar. I think you might get away with three - say, the lead image, and one colour and one black-and-white cartoon picture. But 10 is, I believe, out of the question
• Broken links: Ref 37 is tagged as dead. I also found error or "not found" messages for 39, 40 and 50, and for the external "Toonpedia" link (the last-named could easily be dropped)
• Informal prose: I have not read the article, but I couldn't help noticing that Disney is referred to as "Walt", and that at one point Oswald "thought he had Disney over a barrel". This is the language of magazine journalism, but an encyclopedia require more formal prose. Events need to be reported neutrally, thus the adverb "angrily" is inappropriate. You should check through the text to ensure that an encyclopedic tone is maintained.

These comments should not be interpreted as anything other than a favourable view towards the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good but needs to be fixed up a little.

Spirited Away

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending to get the article up to GA/FA status. So far, this article is looking good, but I would like to have positive feedback on how should I improve the article. The film has won numerous awards and was acclaimed internationally. The objective is to get the article as the main page for TFA for the film's 15th anniversary, which is July 7, 2016.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My first impression: Too many genres listed in the lead sentence. It makes the sentence run on and confusing. Suggest shortening it to stick to the primary genres, which seem to be anime and fantasy: "...is a 2001 Japanese anime fantasy film...". Second impression: Plot summary is too long at 12 paragraphs and 757 words. WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400–700 words for plot summaries of feature films, with simpler plots aiming for the lower end of that range with the upper range intended more for complex plots. This film doesn't seem to have a very complex plot, so I recommend some critical editing to get it down to about 500–550 words in maybe 4 medium-length paragraphs, which would seem an appropriate length for summarizing this story. Those are just my initial, at-a-glance thoughts. The rest of the article looks pretty good on first impression. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination has been withdrawn due to Richard Wagner peer review still open at this time. I will nominate it for PR again when the Wagner discussion is closed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

2013

Adventure Time

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through into GA and hopefully to add into FA standard.

Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 10:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Family Guy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because even if the article is marked as a good article, I thought that we could take it to the next level. I would like to discuss about what needs to be done, or what should have been done to the article to make it to a featured article.

Thanks, Blurred Lines 23:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi- I can't promise I've got time for a full peer review, but here are some thoughts anyway. These all focus on possible expansion; if these are going to make the article too long, look into splitting the article, with good summaries in the main article. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• The international broadcast section is poor. There are some citation needed tags, and some "unknown"s. This can't be all there is, either. I find it hard to believe that it's not shown in Spain or Germany, for instance. Are those in non-English speaking countries dubbed, or do they just have subtitles? It's not a great article, but, still, look at the amount of information in Non-English versions of The Simpsons.
• Looking at the other media/merch sections- The section on the crossovers is poor- half-line paragraphs are not ideal. There's not a lot of information on some video games, but there are on others. There must be more merch- clothing? Lunch boxes? All that sort of thing. You mention only some of the books.
• I'm assuming there are going to be some scholarly sources out there- we really should be using them if possible. Infuriatingly, Google Scholar is clogged with those awful Wikipedia print-off books, so I couldn't really find much there, but a quick poke elsewhere has resulted in a few potentially interesting hits. See this article, for instance.

Porky Pig's Haunted Holiday

I'm submitting this article for a general (not FA/GA) peer review since the whole article has been rewritten and is now:

• Sourced
• Coherent
• Longer

Bergakungen91 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Regular Show

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We need another cartoon GA. I'm a fan of this show, and I noticed the article was in pretty good shape, so I wondered what else it would need.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take to FAC real soon. I would like to hear some professional feedback on this article and on how to improve it to meet FA standards. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

2014

Anime

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It has been over five years since the last peer review and a year since the last Good Article nomination, which it failed to be listed. Despite the fact that this article as been listed as a level-4 vital article, there has been no progress on improving the article to GA or FA status.

Thanks, —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just glanced over the article for the moment and immediately feel as though you could improve the article by restructuring it a bit and combining some sections together..

• I'd think about rewriting the lead to be more broad and perhaps reserving facts about commercialization and production studios for subsequent subsections lead-ins.
• Definition and usage could be renamed Etymology followed by History.
• The content of the Format sections seems to be appropriate to History.
• I don't understand Attributes as a top level section. Not exactly sure what I'm confused about.. it just doesn't read well for me, maybe it's just me.

Flipnote Studio 3D

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it! That includes the possibility that there is too much information...I would like feedback on what information is too in-depth and unneeded for the article, as well as anything that's unclear, or anything that's incorrectly done, etc etc.

Thanks, Sforzando (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

• Would you be able to find reception for the game? Famitsu is a well-known Japanese reviewer. Additionally, perhaps Western media outlets like IGN and GameSpot have offered opinions on the game, even if not full-fledged reviews.
• Also, the more third-party (i.e. not by Nintendo) sources you add, the less in-question the article's notability will be.
• The level-4 subsections in the article (e.g. "Flipnote Gallery: Friends") are a little too detailed. Those bullet points really aren't necessary, and I'd prefer if all of those subsections were merged into "Online services".
  • Done. -Sforzando (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Three images may be a little much for fair use. I'd recommend removing either the second or third one, as they don't illustrate a whole lot about the app's features or general gameplay. (To put it in context, including the friends online would be like a Pokémon game article having a screenshot from the menus – apparently, even a screenshot of the overworld, a major and unique part of the game, is too much to ask, though.)
  • Done. -Sforzando (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• If you're trying to get the article to GA status, it may be ineligible while there are still plans for a Western release but it hasn't happened yet. That was how Pokémon Black and White failed its GAN, for example.
  • Well shucks. -Sforzando (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Simpsons (franchise)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help this article get from a B-class to a GA-class.

Thanks, (t) Josve05a (c) 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Walt Disney

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to improve it to GA, and ultimately out it to FA. I believe that as Walt Disney is a very prominent and important figure in modern entertainment history, his article should be just as well. Every comment is precious!

Thanks, Forbidden User (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't be here until June 25, however, every comment is still welcome!Forbidden User (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Hello Forbidden User. This is a wonderful and comprehensive article that is suitable for GA nomination, I'd encourage you on return to go straight there and deal with and issues as they arise. I have only one comment, that the section "Academy awards" could be tighter and appears to duplicate the subarticle. Other than that, good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)