Talk:Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the shapeshifting limbs from Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension were inspired by the interchangable limbs of the associated toyline? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13pz3unFrM
  • Reviewed:

ALT 1

• ... that the characters and effects of Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension used a combination of CGI, practical effects, suits, and animatronic puppets? Source: https://playbackonline.ca/2001/11/26/galidor-20011126/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by ProtoDrake (talk). Nominated at 01:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

As the person who wrote this article, could you provide the quote/timestamp to support this? I couldn't find that information specifically anywhere. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:"During the late 1990s to early 2000s, Danish toy company The Lego Group were suffering from falling profits; while licenses for franchises such as Star Wars and the in-house Bionicle line proved profitable, at the time there was a market shift away from the style of brick building toys the Lego Group had designed up to that point. Intending to break into the action figure market, the Lego Group created a concept of figures with interchangeable limbs and an associated storyline. The intent was giving buyers both design freedom with the sets and an entertaining narrative."--Gus1001 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gus1001: that doesn't seem to support the notion that the tv show got its idea of shapeshifting limbs from the toy line. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Agreed. It's also not from any of the actual creative staff who were interviewed. It's a quote from the podcast hosts, not the same and in this case I think not admissable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Maybe you could write another alternate DYK for this article.--Gus1001 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know DYK procedures, but noting the nominator is now blocked as checkuser confirmed LTA sock. -- ferret (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• ProtoDrake, would you like to pursue this DYK nomination for this article? If so, please provide a new hook. Otherwise, as Gus1001 has been blocked as a sock, the nomination should be closed if you're not interested in taking over. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: No, I have no interest in pursuing this nom. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Nominator has been blocked as a sock, and person who shepherded the article through the GA process has no interest in pursuing the nomination. Marking for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I will review this article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC) @ProtoDrake:

Lead

• It aired twice so I would specify where in the lead.
  • Added " It had limited reruns on other international networks." Should address that without too much bloat.
• The lead reads well but I would expand on what was that mixed reception.
  • Expanded a little with the very few sources there are.

Overview

• I would rename the section to plot if it is meant to be entire story or premise if it's meant to be an intro.
  • Done.

Episodes

• Is there a general source that could be used for the release dates?
  • Believe me, myself and others tried looking very hard. Pretty much impossible outside those outlets. That's how niche this series has become. Those are the dates that were retrieved, and we managed to get solid confirmation of the debut and final episodes, but...that was it.

Broadcast

• This section seems a little lonely there. Could be moved to below production or a subsection too.
  • Merged broadcast and episodes into a single bulk section.

That's all. I see there is very little story reception but such commentary is also attributed in the lead section.

Revise this and I'll gladly pass the review.Tintor2 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Did my best with everything above. Honestly, it's a huge miracle I was able to find this much about the series, it's pretty much near-lost media by this point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Passing review.Tintor2 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)