Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hell Is Other Robots

< 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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Hell Is Other Robots edit

Check external links

Hell Is Other Robots has gone through some reworking since November 2007, when it had its first GA review, which brought up some good points, all of which were addressed and the article was listed as a WP:GA the second time around. It then had a Peer Review, and a month ago it was kept as a WP:GA, as part of GA Sweeps. I'd also like to acknowledge Stardust8212 (talk · contribs), who has put a good deal of work into the article as well. I believe it is of a high-quality and should be considered for FA status. I will do my best to address any points that come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think that this article is good enough to reach this rank. I did make a minor edit with the grammar in the introduction, but apart from the this article appears to be fine. ISD (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image query I believe that at FA quality, if you want to use a fair-use image, you need to specifically need that image, ie the text includes detailed reference to something which the image clarifies, eg the Robot Devil's appearance is described. If I sound vague, it's because I am (!) so I'll solicit expert advice on this. Incidentally, the article is very sparsely illustrated (that's the only one). I'm sure there are some appropriate free use images somewhere. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I added a free-use image to the article, I'll see if there are any other relevant free-use images that could be added. Perhaps we could try to get a different fair-use image to use in the top of the article, I'll look into that as well. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can get the fair use image later tonight, are there any sections of the text which you think would be specifically improved by an image? I'm open to suggestions. Stardust8212 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks so much for offering to do this. We could probably have 3 images in the article if they are relevant and discussed/analyzed portions of the episode, and still be fair use if detailed rationales are given. Scenes that might be nice would be Bender with Reverend Lionel Preacherbot and the symbol for Robotology, Bender awakening to see the Robot Devil in Robot Hell, and the Fiddle battle. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: Changed the images in the article to more relevant images that are directly discussed in the article text. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I had to rewrite one sentence, but the article is otherwise very good. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose Support, my concerns have been addressed, thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fair use image in the infobox doesn't have a properly filled-out rationale. The "portion used" is not "all" - that would be you used the whole episode. It should be "one frame" or similar.
      • Done. Qst 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pls review WP:FAC instructions regarding graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, that's a new thing you may not have noticed, Qst (talk · contribs), no more template/image checkmarks in FACs, it overloads the main WP:FAC page. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see, you always could a couple of weeks back... Qst 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead seems a little weakly written. I think you could sum up the plot in better prose.
      • Done. Qst 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After a Beastie Boys concert Bender attends a party with his old friend, Fender, where he develops an electricity addiction." That seems to jump through a lot of action with one sentence. How does he develop an electricity addiction?
      • The scene is actually very short but I've added the point that robots were "jacking on" at the party. Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Plot section doesn't meet criterion 1a. Please get someone to copyedit/rewrite.
      • Done. Qst 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in order to" is a bad phrase.. you just need "to" in most cases.
      • Done. Qst 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "David X. Cohen and Ken Keeler traveled to New York in order to work with the Beastie Boys but after three days of waiting they gave up and returned to the studios." This sentence doesn't really explain what happened. Who gave up? Cohen and Keeler? The Beastie Boys? Why?
      • Done, I think the new wording clarifies this though Cohen never states why they needed to return to LA so I can't really answer the why portion (I suspect it was because they had a show to make :-P) Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did the Beastie Boys refuse to perform "Fight For Your Right"?
      • Not done, no reason is given, the conversation is simply "Can I tell the Fight for your right story" "What story?" "They didn't want to do it" "That's a good one". I wish there was more so I could answer this question. Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about adding a sentence like, "The Beastie Boys' reason for declining to perform the song was not made public." or similar? That would at least satisfy the reader that the reason is unknown. --Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've changed it to "It was initially requested that they perform "Fight for Your Right" but they did not want to perform that particular song." which I think summarizes pretty much everything we know about that particular point. Stardust8212 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Production section is a mish-mash of talking about music and character development without any clear organization. The first paragraph talks about the Beastie Boys but leaves out a lot of information. The first sentence of the second paragraph talks about music but... What was the song's name? Why did they decide to write an original song? Then we skip to character development in the same para.
      • done...mostly I reorganized it somewhat, it probably needs a copy edit though (Qst? Cirt?) I couldn't answer all your questions from the resources available but I think the organization of information makes slightly more sense now. Stardust8212 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, it looks much better. I changed to Support, although I really would like to know more information on this particular point, the song name at the very least. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In an old version (a year ago) before I removed the song lyrics it was referred to only as "Robot Hell", I'm not sure that's official though, I'll see if I can find anything else referring to it but I'm not optimistic. Stardust8212 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This episode is one of very few which focus on the religious aspects of the Futurama universe." Grammar.
      • Done. Qst 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In most episodes it is indicated that the Planet Express crew..." Grammar.
      • Done. Qst 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of uses of the word "which" when it should be "that".
      • Done. Qst 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use of the word "riff" is possibly colloquial - suggest better word. I have never heard this word used to mean "spoof" which I presume you meant.
      • Done. Qst 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "'Hell is Other Robots' is a terrific introduction to Bender and Futurama's irreverent humor, sly social satire, and damn catchy musical numbers". Check punctuation - if the period is part of the quote, it should be inside the end quote.
      • Done. Qst 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I caught at least one hyphen that should be an em dash, please check.
    • Footnote 16 is formatted wrong - it reads "pp" and then "Page 9" --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. The pp should be included, check out the syntax at Template:Cite book. Qst 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. The "pp" should be included, but we didn't need the dup "Page", after that, just the actual page number itself. Fixed it. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to last comment

I will work on addressing all of the above points (unless someone else gets to them first) and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a bit of copyediting to the article now, and possibly some minor rewrite. Qst 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's a very good example of an article on an episode. TTN (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice job, looks like FA episode number 15 (assuming 200 (Stargate SG-1) doesn't pass first) to me. Gran2 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is currently making some edits to the article, and is providing some suggestions/helpful comments in the edit summaries as to how to improve the article further w/ some minor fixes. If no one else gets to addressing these points from the edit summaries first, I will do my best to make these corrections soon, and note it here. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes: missing publishers on sources (example, Gord Lacey (May 11, 2005). Futurama - Do the Robot Dance!. Retrieved on June 26, 2007.), endash corrections needed on page ranges in sources (you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script that fixes them), inconsistent wikilinking of dates in sources (example, are dates linked or not? Lane, Joshua. "Futurama: Monster Robot Maniac Fun", AnimatedBliss.com, Joshua Lane & AnimatedBliss.com, February 7, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007. and Staff. "This week in DVDs: Also New This Week", Eye Weekly, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited., August 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007.) and WP:MOS#Captions attention needed to difference between punctuation on full sentences and sentence fragments. Pls review WP:OVERLINKing, and empty parameters in the cite templates unnecessarily chunk up the article size and make the text harder to edit. A serious review of WP:MOSDATE regarding consistency in raw formatted dates in citations needed (hint, look at the article when logged out to see if date formatting is consistent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for providing these detailed suggestions here. I will do my best to address all of these above points, some of which I have already begun to address. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will also assist in the addressing of these points. Qst (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As per suggestion from SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), I asked Brighterorange (talk · contribs) for help w/ dashes. See response. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I ran it yesterday. ;-) Maxim(talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is pp (plural) used on single page numbers in the citations? There is still inconsistent date formatting in the citations; for example, at times, the last access date is linked but the publication date is not. Please be consistent, sample:
  • Staff. "This week in DVDs: Also New This Week", Eye Weekly, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited., August 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I will take a look at that, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Answer to latest question - The "pp" is used for single page numbers because that is what is generated using {{Cite news}}. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you would use page instead of pages. I completed the ref cleanup and made page nos. consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Sandy, I did not realize that {{Cite news}} had a parameter for that. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. - I wikilinked the unlinked full dates from the cites as per WP:MOSDATE and from suggestion by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hell_Is_Other_Robots&oldid=1144706959"