Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Rugrats Chanukah/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [1].

A Rugrats Chanukah edit

Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fully meets the criteria for an FA. Almost all sources are offline, media resources, so I doubt there are any questions on reliability, and it has undergone a copyedit, so the prose should be coherent. The production section might be seemed as lacking, as there are only two paragraphs, but I assure you it is all the info available, and should be acceptable. Note that I have another FAC opened for Dan Povenmire, so please alert me if I need to hold off on this FAC until that one closes. The Flash {talk} 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and forgot to mention, it is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. The Flash {talk} 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full review coming at some point, but I noticed that every paragraph of the lead begins the same. Mm40 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the second paragraph to begin with "The episode[...]" The Flash {talk} 02:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name—I was asked to look this over. I'm a bit concerned with ref formatting.

  • No dab links or dead external links (I hate having to click through Flash just to view text, but that's Klasky-Csupo's fault, not yours).
  • Speaking of Klasky-Csupo, though, why are they used in the "work" parameter of the flash ref? They're a publisher, not a book or journal title. Same with Viacom and Knight-Ridder, and the inverse for The New Yorker (which is definitely a work title). Check for these problems throughout.
  • Done. Note that Knight Ridder is a newspaper, so it is a published work that needs to be italicized. The Flash {talk} 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure Knight Ridder is a newspaper and not a newspaper company? Knight Ridder does not list a newspaper with that name, and I've yet to find a Web page or any source online that even mentions a paper by that name. I want evidence (a cover scan, third-party source, etc.) because I smell fish. --an odd name 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, correct you are. The source I was reading this from put it as "Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service," which I did not realize then simply meant it was the Tribune News Service, as published by Knight Ridder. Fixed. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that's not a newspaper either, just a company. What is the "source [you were] reading this from" anyway? If it's really reliable, I see nothing to hide, and if you can't find it outside of some quote on a fan site you want to keep secret, remove it. --an odd name 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called Encyclopedia.com, which collects samples from thousands of newspapers and other publications from across the nation. Like LexisNexis, but free. I've changed it to publisher. The Flash {talk} 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Again, asked to check.) The few full web links check out, and nothing else seems weird about it, so I might as well. A few more things:

  • I would add the links to the refs' Encyclopedia.com pages—if not for verification, then at least to say where I saw them or to say "these sources do exist and here's the place I got them". Though if you think that would just be advertising or spam then whatever.
  • I don't really think it would be spam or anything, but a lot of the reception bits are things that I've read from the search results that show bits and pieces of the article, not the actual article—while it shows the article for a few paragraphs, you need a free membership (which I don't have) to view the whole thing. Like I said: LexisNexis but free. The Flash {talk} 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " TV Guide later wrote that "Nickelodeon's Rugrats secured its place in television history" with the episode, voiding that it could "entertain a child of any religious denomination" "—I'm not sure I've ever seen that word used to mean "noting" or "saying". Not that I'm a frequent English reader or such.
  • "Unlike Hecht's initial response, Nickelodeon agreed with the claims and apologized, promising never to run the character nor the strip again."—maybe change to "Unlike Hecht, Nickelodeon's new president Herb Scannell agreed with the claims and apologized, promising never to run the character nor the strip again.", since "Hecht's initial response" and "Nickelodeon" don't seem comparable. Perhaps "new" is not the right word; tweak to taste.

Otherwise, I've nothing else. --an odd name 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. :) The Flash {talk} 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Unfortunate repetition of information right at the top: "is a special season-four episode of the animated television series Rugrats. It is the first episode of the show's fourth season".
  • "Meany of Chanukah." Dot goes after the closing punctuation. See MoS. There are others to fix, too.
  • "is to play", rather than "will play" (do you agree?).
  • Yeah, I couldn't find it, but it appears to have been taken care of already (?) The Flash {talk} 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way of preventing the wrap-over of the three citation numbers after Passover"?
  • 1996 link looks like a useless plain year link. Why not make it black and put the explicit, unpiped link in the "See also" section? Readers are more likely to click on it there.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 15:06, December 14, 2009

  • I'd never realised that citation numbers would slip down to the following line if you caught them with just the wrong window size (= column width). That's what I did, unwittingly. This is a Bugzilla report in the making, since it shouldn't happen, don't you agree? Not an FAC issue. Sandy, does it worry you?
  • Fourth season rep is fixed; thanks. I removed the television series link, the middle of three adjacent blue items. WP:LINK says to try to avoid it, and let's face it, TV series is hardly something that needs explanation. Tony (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/12132/rugrats-holiday-celebration/
    • It's DVD Talk. Read about it on the wikipedia article, which itself contains info on why it asserts reliability. The Washington Post (Washington Post), the Sare Tribune (Star Tribune), and Indie Wire (Indie Wire) have all cited it. It was even founded by Geoffrey Kleinman, author, journalist, and radio personality. The Flash {talk} 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll leave this for editors to decide for themselves. For the record, I lean slightly reliable. But the first two references merely mention what users of DVD Talk and its community do and think. The last reference is the only one to cite its review content. RB88 (T) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really cannot fathom why you doubt it's relability, and strongly urge you to change your mind. If you read it's article, you'll see dozens of reasons why it's totally reliability. Nothing in it is written by users. Give me one good reason why a site which is cited in news outlets (Indie Wire it totally a reliable sort, as are the other two which mention it is a credible place for DVD reviews) and is founded by a published author and journalist is unreliable. Again, it is not even close to being a "community website" and I am—truthfully—quite surprised that you doubt it (both here and all other FACs I've seen you reviewed and doubt it). Once more, please reconsider. The Flash {talk} 01:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've rephrased my statement above after more research. I still think editors need to decide for themselves. Also, don't use bold lettering in normal statements as it may confuse the FAC leaders when they check for comments, supports, and objects. Good luck with the rest of the nomination and I'm always here for source checks when you're writing other articles. Just drop a line. RB88 (T) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use the publishing locations in the reflist, then either do it for all citations or none. Your call.
  • The reason not all use the locations field is that the info is unknown. There's no policy against using it for certain refs, correct? The Flash {talk} 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • References need uniformity, be that with date conventions, order of information, or bits of info. As I said, if you can't find the locations for all, then remove the ones you have cited already. RB88 (T) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "It is the first of the show's fourth season and the sixty-sixth overall." First what? Episode? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I think Tony was referring to the repetition of "fourth season" and "season-four" that existed before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony did actually say that the change was fine, but I've gone ahead and added "episode" to the sentence. The Flash {talk} 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments as promised from Mm40 (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • I guess all the spellings of Hanukkah should math the title
  • I would add "the Jewish holiday of" before Hanukkah to free up links in the next section (see below)
  • Repetition of "on" in the first sentence of the last paragraph; I suggest "Nickelodeon originally broadcast the episode on December 4, 1996" or something similar
  • "and his wife Minka, also attracted controversy, when the" I think neither comma should be there
Plot summary
  • "they are the people featured in the story" can be reworded "they are the story's characters" of "they are the characters" or something
  • How about linking "Jewish kingdom" to Judea?
  • "through miraculous circumstances" can simply be "miraculously"
Production
  • "began finishing up production" can be "finished production"
  • "was eventually pushed back" why is "eventually" necessary?
  • Is there any info on when in 1998 it was released?
  • "holiday-themed episodes of Rugrats, and included" can either be
  • Fixed it myself. Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and featured illustrations by Barry Goldberg" isn't really needed if Goldberg isn't particularly notable
Release and reception
  • "December 4, 1996, on Nickelodeon" no comma needed after "1996"
  • "8:30 p.m." should have a non-breaking space and "time" should be capitalized in "Eastern time"
  • Done with the "time" thing, but what do you mean about the non-breaking space? The Flash {talk} 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NBSP; MoS thing. I've added it myself but you may want to get familiar as FAC folks are picky about 'em. Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the second mention of ADL have "the" before it? Not sure
Other
  • "A Rugrats Passover" shouldn't be under See also because it's already linked to in the main text

The article does great justice to the show; I'll happily support when these issues are fixed. By any chance, is "A Rugrats Passover" next? Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure if the Passover special is ready just yet, but after some cleanup and maybe some better sources I'll probably hitch her up for FAC. :) The Flash {talk} 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does show up here, you can be sure the see my review. I've replied to you a couple of times above. Thanks for your work, Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem; thanks yourself for the support. :) The Flash {talk} 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: article uses a single copyrighted image with qualified fair use rationale.[2] No issue. Jappalang (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Prose looks solid. ceranthor 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pickles family fear that Boris's bitter rivalry with Schlomo will ruin the play. - family is singular, so the family fears
  • If possible, could you expand the controversy section?
  • Sorry, but that's all the information available; there is the official press statement, but it itself isn't much more then what the section already says, plus it's focused on the 1998 controversy. The Flash {talk} 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asked to revisit. Full prose support. ceranthor 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Ok, this subject area is completely outside my normal purview, but I'll give it a try. You have here the perspective of someone who's never seen the show, and barely knows what the Rugrats are. As such, I will mostly be evaluating prose. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and referred to alternatively as "Rugrats Chanukah Special," missing "the", no?
  • Nope, that's how they refer to it in all the magazines and books I've looked through. The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a special episode of the animated television series Rugrats." Is "special" TV lingo? What's special about it?
Thanks for linking special. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"The plot involves a visit by the babies," what babies? Rugrat babies?

*"The episode was written by J. David Stem and David N. Weiss and directed by Raymie Muzquiz." How about a comma after Weiss?

Plot summary

  • "On Chanukah, Grandma Minkus reads a book" why does Grandpa Boris get a bluelink but not Grandma Minkus?
  • "Upon arrival they discover that there is only enough olive oil" Confused here, who is arriving where? Does "they" refer to the Maccabees or the Rugrats?
  • The Maccabees. I'm unsure how its confusing, there's only a mention of the Rugrats once in the para. and following that it just mentions Judah and the Maccabees.... The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I haven't seen the show. The paragraph starts out by saying the rugrats pretend they are the story's characters. The next three sentences talk about the adventures of Judah and his army, and I presume from the second sentence that Judah is Tommy. So when I get to the fifth sentence which says "Upon their arrival they discover" I just not sure if the "they" means the rugrats, the Maccabees, or the Rugrats pretending they are Maccabees. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if I can make it clearer in the summary, but here's a bit of an explanation: as with several television programs, this episodes features someone telling a story. The story is shown, and—for both representation and comedic purposes—the main characters' appearances are used to represent the characters featured. Therefore, "they" is referring to to Maccabees, whose appearance is based on that of the main characters. Does that clarify it? The Flash {talk} 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does when you explain it, but it's still not quite clear from just reading the text. I'll chalk it up to my own neurological dysfunctions and strike the issue. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Pickles family fears…" This is the first mention of the Pickles family… who are they?

Production

  • "Paul Germain, co-creator of Rugrats, responded by suggesting a Passover special instead, describing it as a "funny idea"[3] and was considered to be of "historical interest." Does not parse, verb tenses not in agreement
  • "responded by suggesting"... "describing it as"... "and was considered to be" Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. How about just removing the unnecessary words "was considered to be", I think it would read fine after that. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I do that it'll be even more ridged and read "Paul Germain, co-creator of Rugrats, responded with the concept of a Passover special instead, as a 'funny idea'" The Flash {talk} 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1996, the crew successfully produced the Passover special" Is this "crew" the writer/director combo mentioned in the lead? Also, what was successful about their production? Is it possible to unsuccessfully produce a tv show?
  • And, no, its the crew that it clearly mentions just a few sentences above... And they successfully produced it, I'm not entirely sure how much clearer it can get. Actually, yes, it is possible to "unsuccessfully produce a tv show;" production faults could lead to the idea being scraped all together midproduction, something which has occurred several times throughout television history. The Flash {talk} 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the problem is then, the "crew" is mentioned in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, but I have no idea who they are. Is crew short for production crew? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you put "production crew" in the article to help out Luddites like me? Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. David Stem - I think there should be non-breaking spaces after initials like this to prevent unsightly line wraps
  • Depending on the width of your browser, the sentence might read like so: "J. David Stem and David N." (line break) "Weiss collaborated to write the script..." See what I mean? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do not, actually. What should I do to fix it, nonetheless? The Flash {talk} 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out the initial, put non-breaking spaces between the initials, or use a {{nowrap}} template around the name. It's not really a big deal though, just tweaking. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • books should have publisher locations, no?
  • It's not necessary, no, nor is it always available info. The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox image caption shouldn't have period at the end (it's a sentence fragment)

Support on prose. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm finding too many small issues here, indicating more strenuous review might be needed. See my edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read through your summaries, and, as you noted, they are all minor. You only note that you think it needs reviewing, so if you believe so, it would be best if you point them out. As above, consensus is leading to a support, but if you believe there are concerns that need fixing for it to pass its FAC, please state so and perhaps directly state which bits need to be fixed. The Flash {talk} 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewers aren't expected to list every problem. Anyway, here are a few things:
  • "the episode and others featuring Grandpa Boris and his wife Minka also attracted controversy" "also" is unnecessary here.
  • "The babies listen and pretend that they are the story's characters." "pretend" is vague here. Did they actually enact the story themselves or just imagine themselves in it?
  • "The Pickles, a functional, American family, fears that Boris's bitter" Basic subject-verb agreement problem here.
  • I think that it should be "The Pickles ... fear". However, I will ask Tony1, a grammar expert, to be sure.
  • "Once production closed on "A Rugrats Passover"" Perhaps "concluded" is a better verb?
  • "in the Kids 2–11 demographic" Why is "Kids" capitalized?
  • In ratings info, the demographic is always capitalized. I believe it asserts it as a proper noun in the situation. The Flash {talk} 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite a source or Wikipedia guideline for this? You may be right, but it's impossible to tell by looking at existing FA articles for this. For example, from "Confirmed Dead": "The episode received a 6.5/16 in the key adults 18–49 demographic." Another, from "No Such Thing as Vampires": ""No Such Thing as Vampires" finished first among total viewers and adults 18–49 for its night." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "himself Jewish, professed himself dumbfounded by the criticism" "himself ... himself" repetition is jarring.
  • "by the character reciting" --> "by the character's reciting" or "by the character's recitation of"
  • I didn't read closely enough to decide whether this is FA level; these are issues I saw on a quick skim. However, quite a few of the issues I saw above demonstrate that the article has not quite attained the level of polish that FAs are expected to have. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else done. I'm also unsure how these (what seem to be) minor issues can draw away from its FA quality. The Flash {talk} 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I just looked at the Release and reception section and found a surprising number of problems for something that's been listed for so long. The scope of the issues suggests a thorough, independent copyedit (meaning, someone new to the text) is needed, with an eye toward details, MoS, repetition in prose, and plain errors. It appears to be a good way off the mark. Examples follow:
    • "Multiple repeats of the episode continue to air" Is a multiple repeat more than a repeat? Simpler yet, "The episode continued to air"
    • Quite a bit of repetition in the text. For example, consecutively: "TV Guide later wrote that", "Ted Cox ... commented that", "DVD Talk reviewer Francis Rizzo III wrote that", "Michael Atkinson and Laurel Shifrin wrote ... that"
      • I'm not sure how you wish me to fix it. Any ideas? The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "opting that it could 'entertain a child of any religious denomination'" Opting? Do you mean "opining"?
    • "'A Rugrats Chanukah', along with other Rugrats episodes which featured Boris and his wife Minka as characters" What is the phrase "as characters" telling us that's not already told? If you insist, why not "which featured characters Boris and his wife Minka"?
    • Don't provide acronyms for terms that are never used again (ADL).
      • You're inaccurate there; it is called "ADL" later. Check again. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nickelodeon's then-president" To my eyes, it's quite ugly to have the apostrophe-s unlinked and the rest of it linked. Nickelodeon is thrice-linked; why?
      • Dunno, must've been a accident. Fixed (and it was only linked twice) The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason for the single subheading under the Reception section? It's better practice to have two or more subheadings where we use them, unless there is a compelling reason to have one. I don't see how the content in that section warrants its own heading.
      • I have split up the reception section. It is significant as it is the only negative response to the episode. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has already undergone a thorough copyedit from an independent copyeditor, so I'm not sure how more of the same thing will fix it. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if we're still finding basic problems, I would say the copyedit was not sufficient and you need to get someone else. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem there is CEG might as well be dead—backlog goes back almost to 2008 on their request page, and I do not know anyone else who would be able to copyedit. Do you have any recommendations? And I was referring to your comments, lol. The Flash {talk} 03:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asking what copyeditor you are referring to. As to who: I would look for interested parties in your subject area. Fish for expert editors in the television and television-show projects. There are plenty of them who have brought TV articles up to FA status. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I haven't re-read since Steve's edits—I will do so tonight. Perhaps the problems are already resolved. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caveat: I didn't have a lot of time, but I think the more obvious stuff has been caught, enough that anything remaining should be minor enough to be easily cleaned up. Steve T • C 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken my opposition based on the recent improvements. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Struck oppose, from Steve T • C I'm sorry, but reading the lead alone revealed several problems straight away with the prose, and one factual error:
    • The alt text for the infobox image was ungrammatical and contained irrelevant details, such as colours (alt text is primarily aimed at those who cannot see).
    • "A Rugrats Chanukah", titled onscreen as simply "Chanukah" and referred to alternatively as the "Rugrats Chanukah Special"—unnecessarily wordy for an opening sentence. The "simply" is editor commentary and can go (don't tell your readers what to think) and "referred to alternatively as" can be rendered more concisely as "sometimes called", don't you think?
    • Overlinking; I think most people will be aware of the concept of "animation".
      • Where exactly was that? Which links do you believe are unneeded? The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's OK, I got rid of that one; I'm unsure that television special needs a link, but it's borderline and won't lose any sleep if it's kept. :-) Steve T • C
    • The plot description: "The plot involves a visit by the Rugrats, accompanied by Grandpa Boris, to a synagogue. While there, they ..."—again, wordy, not snappy, a bit twisty. Just removing a few words and a couple of commas makes it flow better and doesn't change any of the intended meaning.
      • I'm unsure was words I chip off there. That bit reads quite clearly to be, so I can't find any words that pop put as needing to be omitted. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My amendment reads, "Its plot tells of a visit by the Rugrats and Grandpa Boris to a synagogue, where they ..."—this conveys the same information in a lot less space. Steve T • C
    • At this stage, after this long at FAC, a basic fact such as the production and air date of the Passover special should not be wrong. A glance at the article history reveals it's always been this way; all the sources (save the IMDb) say that episode was produced and broadcast in 1995. This was easily spotted, too, as the timeline in the context of the Chanukah special's production didn't ring true.
      • Thanks for fixing it, but please be aware it was a simple mistake. I did not spot it, but it was merely a minor typo of sorts and (IMHO) isn't particularly a huge factual error. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Accepted, though you should make sure it doesn't appear anywhere in the article body too. Steve T • C
    • "The idea of making a Rugrats Chanukah special was pitched to the production crew in 1992"—pitched by whom? The question is immediately begged, more so in this case because it's a production crew (the director or writers, etc.) who usually do the pitching. Switching to active voice ("Nickelodeon executives pitched the idea of a Rugrats Chanukah special to the production crew in 1992") immediately improves how it reads as well as giving the reader information they didn't have before, all in the exact same number of words.
    • Some redundancies in that paragraph too.
      • Came you name some to get me started? The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I eliminated them, but take it as an example of what could be looked at in the rest of the text; have you ever looked at Tony1's guide? I owe almost all the improvements to my own writing over the last couple of years to that document. Steve T • C
          • Thanks once more; I'll definitely need to give that guide a look-see soon. The Flash {talk} 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "completing it soon afterwards"—one I haven't changed, as I couldn't work out what to change it to. It doesn't really tell us anything. It's the equivalent of a story that begins, "They set off for the castle; when they got there ..." Nothing is told to us about the journey. Of course they completed it "soon afterwards", else there wouldn't be an episode. :-)
      • lol, Indeed, you're right there. I've removed the "soon afterwords" part. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nickelodeon originally broadcast "A Rugrats Chanukah" on December 4, 1996, receiving a Nielsen Rating of 7.9"—while an argument could be made that the network gets the rating, it's more idiomatic to say the episode does.
    • "In spite of this positive reception, the episode and others featuring Grandpa Boris and his wife Minka attracted controversy ..."—it's not in spite of, or despite, the positive reception, it's simply in addition to. Per WP:AVOID, such words "can sometimes imply that one alternative is less favored than another". In short, the article is dictating again to the reader what to think. Simply present the fact as is, rather than adding commentary.
  • I've taken a swing at these issues myself ([3]; [4]; [5]; [6]); feel free to disagree with the way in which I resolved them and recast them yourself, but they definitely needed attention, and the rest of the article should be scanned for similar issues. For a factual error to go unnoticed for so long is slightly worrying too, especially as it seemed obvious that the chronology didn't quite gel. I'll watchlist the FAC, so there's no need to ping me if you reply; I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able. All the best, Steve T • C 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and—more importantly—thank you for fixing most of them yourself, lol. Your adjustments seem fine and your explanations for them also are definitely justifiable. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome; if I get time later today I'll see if I can give some pointers for the rest of the article. All the best, Steve T • C 08:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've wiped my opposition. I didn't have a massive amount of time, but I reckon I've fixed the remaining obvious prose bumps. It might be worth pinging Andy to see if he agrees. One last thing, a link in the "Plot" section goes to Menorah (Temple); the infobox image shows a nine-branched Menorah. I haven't seen the episode (my kid is more of a Spongebob nut), but if the Menorah featured is also nine-branched, shouldn't the link be to Menorah (Hanukkah)? Anyway, good luck with the rest of it, Steve T • C 10:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, thank you. I have fixed the Menorah issue, so consider everything fixed :) The Flash {talk} 22:04, 20 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/A_Rugrats_Chanukah/archive1&oldid=1138453656"