Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation/archive1

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation edit

See also: December 2005 peer review

Self-nomination: After almost a year of working on it, as a big fan of the Care Bears franchise, I am heartfully proud--literally speaking--to submit one of my first-ever efforts in Wikipedia writing as a featured article candidate. As stated on its talk and peer review pages, this is no usual such candidate: It deals completely with an obscure children's movie that hasn't had a really good share of critical attention (outside the CB fandom), and whose article really deserves better than the movie itself.

Everything, as of the moment I am posting this, has been all set for this to become an FA, per Wikipedia's requirements.

Please let me know what you fellow Wikipedians think of it. --Slgrandson 17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have a number of concerns. There are a lot of unfree images in the article. I am unsure that they are all absolutely necessary. The referencing seems to rely upon some things that may not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and statements like "...remains popular with Care Bear fans" still remain to be referenced. "Continuity problems" looks like it might be in original research territory. The prose is sometimes confusing: "Critics and viewers alike have looked down upon the rehashed influence of J. M. Barrie's famous children's play, Peter Pan, throughout the film. The Great Wishing Star's involvement in the film's plot, also with the "Forever Young" sequence, and a scene in which the Bears and Dark Heart bringing Christy back to life, give proof of this." is hard for me to parse. The article is over-wikilinked; Canada is linked to twice in the first two paragraphs, and that article does not provide helpful background information for this one (we can trust our readers to know what a Canadian is without linking). In terms of organization, I am put off by the "Voice Cast" table immediately following the WP:LEAD -- what is the associated WikiProject layout? The "See also" section seems especially tangential. For example, if no one has compared The Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation to Dumb & Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd before, we shouldn't be doing it. Good luck. Jkelly 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Also, the WP:LEAD is slightly long; according to WP:LEAD the lead should be at most 3 paragraphs, so consider condensing the lead. I agree also about the layout of the article needs to be worked on. The TOC - table of contents - is huge! ~~The "H" in Dark Heart needs to be decapatilized per WP:MoS, as well as several other headings.~~ The prose also contains many short, 1-sentence paragraphs that would be best either merged or expanded. As for length, I would suggest breaking up the Plot section and creating a subpage called Plot of Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation, where that subpage could contain the bulk of the information while on this page only the most important stuff is kept. This is also heavily list-weighty. I don't really think it is necessary to include the 2 taglines. Take a look also at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body, which is a guideline for films like these. AndyZ 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark Heart is the character's name; you want the section title to be "Dark heart"? That's not what the MoS means. That would be ridiculous. Proper nouns are exempt. Everyking 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, you're right about that. I take back that part-accidentally misread it. AndyZ 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm very impressed by this. A couple things caught my eye: in the intro it basically says the movie got trashed, and later on it explains this in more detail, but also in the intro it says the film has gained popularity in Care Bear fandom—shouldn't it say why? It may have at some point, and I just missed it. Also: the movie poster doesn't include "the" in the title, but our article title does. Later I saw where it says some critic complained that they forget about the "the". Do we know that the real title does include "the", and this was just a mistake, or could it be intentional? It looks like they also left off "the" on the 2003 release, which seems to have a different cover design, and that suggests to me that it was intentional. Everyking 10:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: I don't know in what sense you can consider those other 1986 movies "competitors" with the Care Bears movie. I mean, does being in theaters at the same time automatically make movies competitors? None of the other movies were geared towards young children, so I don't see how they could have really competed with the Care Bears in terms of ticket sales. Everyking 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Many of the references do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources (and by extension, WP:NOR), message board postings are clearly precluded from being good sources, and many of the other references are just raw lists without any commentary. Then there's the problem that a lot of pseudo-POV claims aren't even cited in the first place. --W.marsh 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response from nominator: I've begun to address the problems of this article by cleaning it up per your comments, adding a few more sources to it where needed. Now, how does it look? I hope it's good enough (at least after the plot moves into its sub-page), so please look at this version and tell me what you think. --Slgrandson 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: As the article improves, will it be acceptable to add new sections about the video/DVD releases, as well as translations of the title in other languages? I've seen examples of this on pages about Disney movies. --Slgrandson 09:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Things I noticed at a glance that need to be cleaned up: Images need fair use rationale. Inline external links should be convert to references if used as such. The number of sections is excessive, many have one (or zero!) paragraphs. ~~References belong after punctuation. Section headers should not be linked according to the MOS.~~ Pagra shtak 23:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Those pictures have suitable tags on their description pages, but how come you're complaining about fair use lacking? I'll have to see about that. --Slgrandson 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I get it. Looking at the descriptions for images in Sunset Boulevard and November (two featured articles about films), I'll look forward to putting the rationales on every one. --Slgrandson 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: The whole tone of this article is wrong – the spirit seems to be trying to convey that this is an interesting and underrated subject that readers should want to know more about, but the facts presented don’t bear that out (no pun intended). Nothing but dismal profits, scathing reviews, poor video treatment, and plot holes. If the article focused more on how this movie was so bad it was actually the beginning of the end for the Care Bears franchise, at least that would be something. Compare the hopeful tone of this article to the ironic tone of articles like Manos: The Hands of Fate, one of the worst films ever made (a list on which Care Bears II would certainly be included if there was an animated films category). “Manos” is a terrible, terrible movie, but it is still a good article because the back story on the production and the reasons for why and how the mistakes were made are interesting and funny. This Care Bears article is basically saying, "This movie has no redeeming qualities, even for Care Bears fans. I like it for no reason at all." Something’s just not right there.

A few other minor problems:

"Oddly enough" - unencyclopedic
"has even worsened such a fate" - grammar (and, again, tone; implies it doesn't deserve the fate it got, which it did)
"As well, a few have also objected" - grammar
"It has now peaked to 4.7" – present-tense, news-style reports of imdb standings are too unstable to include; they’re irrelevant if out of date (even if the date is cited) and nobody is going to check and update it every day, or even every week. Kafziel 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like care bears too but I think the article needs some more info on development and production. BlueShirts 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator: I agree with you, BlueShirts. But sorry, I can't find that information online. It would help of I (or someone else) could do the tasks required as such to bring it to FA status.

Object. I would much rather see Care Bears be the featured article. I see this article as a symptom of it. Why not make the Care Bears article more related to the cultural phenomenon, culture associated with (including the various people collecting and trading, furries, cosplay, etc) it? It makes a lot more sense this way. The article you've presented has a lot of information, but how much of it is (I'm sorry to say it) actually interesting and encyclopedic? The Care Bears article is much more appropriate. That having been said, I've been watching your contributions since you started, and while I don't think CBM is the best place for you to be directing your efforts, I am very impressed with what you've done. Keep up the good work ... aa:talk 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was strange, too. Out of all the Care Bears stuff, this is the one to be put up for featured status? I think your efforts would be well-spent improving the main Care Bears article, Slgrandson. Kafziel 13:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our comments should stay on the FAC page a little longer...if only I can do something fast about it. --Slgrandson 03:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator: With your comments in mind, exactly when will this become an FAC again (possibly along with #1)? Now I'm really starting to go back and improve the main article. --Slgrandson 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes, now this article looks really short and I regret supporting it. I liked it before because it seemed so rich in detail. Obviously a subarticle for the plot was created, which is good, but creating a subarticle doesn't mean the main article should be reduced so much. Anyway, I think you should keep working on this one and nominate it again pretty soon. See what you can do in the remainder of March and then nominate again in April, maybe. Everyking 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]