Talk:The Art of the Sucker Punch
Latest comment: 14 years ago by SuperFlash101 in topic Recent edits by SuperFlash101
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Art of the Sucker Punch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The Art of the Sucker Punch was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Art of the Sucker Punch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Checking against GA criteria edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Plot: Vowing vengeance on Shannon for this crime, Brendon challenges the bully to a brawl, despite lacking both the physical ineptness and knowledge to actually engage in a fight. Really? I think you mean the opposite. "despite lacking the ... physical ineptness" is a double negative. And "eptness" isn't a word so this will need reworking.
- Shannon laments about how his bullying ways have caused no one he knows to actually like him, and the kids sympathize with the bully. "...about how his bullying ways have caused no one he knows to actually like him..." Please rewrite grammatically.
- Apart from the above, the main problem that this article has is the complete lack of notability. WP:EPISODE is pretty clear on this. It needs to merged into Home Movies (TV series)#Season 1.
- a (prose):
- If you insist on merging it, understand that there is already a page called Home Movies (season 1) The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 00:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References are OK, but those that are online just mention the episode in passing, or are just about the series. Nothing there establishes the notability of this episode. "Substantial coverage" of the episode in WP:RS would be needed to establish notability. Take ref #7 [1] Ryan's only words on this episode are a two line plot summary. He does not write that the episode relied on a humor that was both easy to identify with and added a "tremendous amount of humor." He says that about the series.
- a (references):
- He specifically mentions the episode's plot when stating that it was easy to identify with and added humor. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 00:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, I am failing this immediately on general notability concerns. If you disagree with this assessment, plase take it to WP:GAR for community re-assessment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I strongly disagree with your assertion that the notability is not established. There are plenty of sources listing its production and (most importantly) the critical reception surrounding it, including several third-party newspaper sources mentioning its very crappy viewership, critically discussing how it was a continued decrease in ratings. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 00:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits by SuperFlash101 edit
Recent edits by SuperFlash101 have removed the orphan tag placed on this article. As it links to only one other article in main space, that tag is appropriate. The criteria at WP:Orphan suggests three links. It is in everyone's interest to de-orphan pages as then they will be come more visible and will be visited more often. Currently the page views average around ten paer day which is very low.
- The article is in the Home Movies template, which means that the article now is linked on over 5 articles, which indefinitely means it is not an orphan. I would like to hear if you had any idea whatsoever as to what other articles this could possibly be linked to, as if you still believe that it meets WP:ORPHAN policy then, please, I would be more than glad to improve it. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I tagged ref #5 [2] as [not in citation given] as this reference does not mention the writers at all, hence it does not support the statement "Main cast members Small, H. Jon Benjamin, Paula Poundstone and Melissa Bardin Galsky were credited as writers for the episodes, while Bouchard was also attributed as contributing to certain dialogue material." Please address the problem rather than removing the tag.
- Other citations support the cast "wrote" the episode; said Zap2it citation merely is being used to list which specific cast members are cited as starring in the episode, therefore making themselves the writers. I understand this specifically is rather ambiguous and upon your request may reword it to something more matching to what this citation is giving. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I tagged ref #7 [3] as [not in citation given] as this reference does not contain anything that supports the statement "In his review for the series' fourth season DVD, DVD Talk's Francis Rizzo listed the character [ Shannon] on his compilation of elements in the show he had a strong distaste for". What it actually says is "When the local bully Shannon (Emo Phillips) beats up Jason, Brendon decides he's going to take revenge by challenging him to a fight. Of course he'll also make a When We Were Kings-like film at the same time. There's just one hitch—Brendon is a horrible fighter. Coach McGuirk steps in to give him some pointers." Again, please address the problem rather than just removing the tag.
- Ref 7 isn't being used to cite that statement at all. Ref 17 is, which specifically lists Shannon as a something the author "Hates" at the very top. Read more carefully into things next time before making this specific glaring mistake. DVD Verdict isn't even the site listed in the very statement you just used to argue that it did not support the statement; obviously that reference will not support the statement when it's not even being used to cite it. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies, got that wrong, I should have said that ref #7 is cited on the second instance as supporting the statement "DVD Verdict reviewer David Ryan similarly wrote that the episode relied on a humor that was both easy to identify with and added a "tremendous amount of humor."", but in fact the only instance of the word "humor" occurs in this statement: "And what a cornerstone it turned out to be. Smart, clever, and devastatingly funny, Home Movies is at heart a show about kids who think like adults and talk like adults, but who usually wind up acting their age. It brings you into the very realistic world of these characters, and makes you care about their little stories. There's no Simpsons-esque "Homer Goes Into Space" over-the-top farce here; Brendon and his cohorts deal with simple problems with which most people can identify: feeding the neighbor's cat, dealing with a bully, coping with divorce. And guess what? There's a tremendous amount of humor in these everyday situations, something that humorists from Erma Bombeck to Jerry Seinfeld know quite well. In the right hands, even the simplest foible becomes high comedy. This show definitely had the right hands.", which doesn't mention this specific episode. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right here: "Brendon and his cohorts deal with simple problems with which most people can identify: feeding the neighbor's cat, dealing with a bully, coping with divorce. And guess what? There's a tremendous amount of humor in these everyday situations[...]" Do you see? This has been the basis of my argument from the beginning: the aforementioned statement specifically references the plot of the episode and states that it "adds a tremendous amount of humor" via its conventional treatment of "everyday situations." I hope this gets the point across I've been trying to make since the beginning. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies, got that wrong, I should have said that ref #7 is cited on the second instance as supporting the statement "DVD Verdict reviewer David Ryan similarly wrote that the episode relied on a humor that was both easy to identify with and added a "tremendous amount of humor."", but in fact the only instance of the word "humor" occurs in this statement: "And what a cornerstone it turned out to be. Smart, clever, and devastatingly funny, Home Movies is at heart a show about kids who think like adults and talk like adults, but who usually wind up acting their age. It brings you into the very realistic world of these characters, and makes you care about their little stories. There's no Simpsons-esque "Homer Goes Into Space" over-the-top farce here; Brendon and his cohorts deal with simple problems with which most people can identify: feeding the neighbor's cat, dealing with a bully, coping with divorce. And guess what? There's a tremendous amount of humor in these everyday situations, something that humorists from Erma Bombeck to Jerry Seinfeld know quite well. In the right hands, even the simplest foible becomes high comedy. This show definitely had the right hands.", which doesn't mention this specific episode. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Finally, please do not attack other editors in edit summaries as "yes it is; stop finding problems where there aren't any, it's showing unnecessary animosity and a personal vendetta, i.e., personal assaults. either that or WP:IDONTLIKEIT" or "Same. You're being completely ridiculous, you didn't even bother to read anything I've said, or actually look. What is with this personal vendetta you have towards this quality WP:TV article?" Pleae abide by civility guidelines and assume good faith. My interest is in improving Wikipedia, not in attacking you. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am in literally no way, shape, or form, being uncivil to you. Those above edit statements were asserting my opinion and opting that by your actions I assumed you had a personal vendetta towards the subject matter or the article itself for a reason that is beyond me. Everything I am doing is in defense of a perfectly good article of which you consistently state does not meet policy despite being much better quality-wise then most WP:TV GAs. I am stumbling to understand how you came to this specific conclusion and remind you I, too, am merely improving Wikipedia, and by assuming that your actions are a personal attack or WP:IDONTLIKEIT has literally no underlying lack of civility. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, if you can establish the notability of this episode then it won't be merged or AfD'd, but so far there really is nothing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- The main problem with your referencing is that you don't seem to understand how to do it. Example: The DVD verdict review says of the episode, "When the local bully Shannon (Emo Phillips) beats up Jason, Brendon decides he's going to take revenge by challenging him to a fight. Of course he'll also make a When We Were Kings-like film at the same time. There's just one hitch—Brendon is a horrible fighter. Coach McGuirk steps in to give him some pointers." Of the series it says " Brendon and his cohorts deal with simple problems with which most people can identify: feeding the neighbor's cat, dealing with a bully, coping with divorce. And guess what? There's a tremendous amount of humor in these everyday situations, something that humorists from Erma Bombeck to Jerry Seinfeld know quite well. In the right hands, even the simplest foible becomes high comedy. This show definitely had the right hands." You have combined these two separate statements to support the sentence in the article: DVD Verdict reviewer David Ryan similarly wrote that the episode relied on a humor that was both easy to identify with and added a "tremendous amount of humor." That is WP:SYNTH#Synthesis of published material that advances a position.
- The main problem with your referencing is that you don't seem to understand how to do it. Example: The DVD verdict review says of the episode, "When the local bully Shannon (Emo Phillips) beats up Jason, Brendon decides he's going to take revenge by challenging him to a fight. Of course he'll also make a When We Were Kings-like film at the same time. There's just one hitch—Brendon is a horrible fighter. Coach McGuirk steps in to give him some pointers." Of the series it says " Brendon and his cohorts deal with simple problems with which most people can identify: feeding the neighbor's cat, dealing with a bully, coping with divorce. And guess what? There's a tremendous amount of humor in these everyday situations, something that humorists from Erma Bombeck to Jerry Seinfeld know quite well. In the right hands, even the simplest foible becomes high comedy. This show definitely had the right hands." You have combined these two separate statements to support the sentence in the article: DVD Verdict reviewer David Ryan similarly wrote that the episode relied on a humor that was both easy to identify with and added a "tremendous amount of humor." That is WP:SYNTH#Synthesis of published material that advances a position.
- OK, if you can establish the notability of this episode then it won't be merged or AfD'd, but so far there really is nothing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I must now, of course, restate things again because you are completely missing the point: I am not combining anything! The sentence specifically mentions the episode ("dealing with a bully") and I am stating this in the article as is. Why do you refuse to accept this, call me an idiot, and dub every edit I make vandalism? I honestly do not understand why you are having such a ludicrously difficult time understanding practically anything at all of which I am saying and explaining. I have been editing more almost two years and have familiarized myself with every policy necessary to write a high-quality WP:TV article and have therefore written over 30 WP:GAs.
- I must now, of course, restate things again because you are completely missing the point: I am not combining anything! The sentence specifically mentions the episode ("dealing with a bully") and I am stating this in the article as is. Why do you refuse to accept this, call me an idiot, and dub every edit I make vandalism? I honestly do not understand why you are having such a ludicrously difficult time understanding practically anything at all of which I am saying and explaining. I have been editing more almost two years and have familiarized myself with every policy necessary to write a high-quality WP:TV article and have therefore written over 30 WP:GAs.
- I am quite honestly disgusted at the low level behavior you are treating me with, dubbing perfectly fine elements crap, and completely ignoring statements which I give you (which perfectly justify edits and examples you point out as against entire policy) for the sole purpose of proving your point. The fact that you're ignoring things I've said and obviously missing the point of the very clear statements I give gives the impression that you are being careless with this discussion and aiming with the sole purpose of proving your point by backing them up with policies that are so-called deeming elements of this article as against said policies. In these two completely ridiculous and unnecessary discussions you have (in not the exact words) addressed me as a vandal and a simpleton who does not know how to write an article, or cite it, or essentially read. I might be taking this out of proportions, but the fact is that this discussion goes nowhere and your argument is never sound enough, and it is quite honestly getting me on ends.
- I am quite honestly disgusted at the low level behavior you are treating me with, dubbing perfectly fine elements crap, and completely ignoring statements which I give you (which perfectly justify edits and examples you point out as against entire policy) for the sole purpose of proving your point. The fact that you're ignoring things I've said and obviously missing the point of the very clear statements I give gives the impression that you are being careless with this discussion and aiming with the sole purpose of proving your point by backing them up with policies that are so-called deeming elements of this article as against said policies. In these two completely ridiculous and unnecessary discussions you have (in not the exact words) addressed me as a vandal and a simpleton who does not know how to write an article, or cite it, or essentially read. I might be taking this out of proportions, but the fact is that this discussion goes nowhere and your argument is never sound enough, and it is quite honestly getting me on ends.
- Now, if this is your final issue I do so gleefully desire for it to be dealt with in this spelling out of what I have previously stated. I am sure you as well do not desire to be in an endless discussion and a pointless argument, so I can only hope we can come to a clear consensus and a civil agreement :) The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Again, the statement in the article: Main cast members Small, H. Jon Benjamin, Paula Poundstone and Melissa Bardin Galsky were credited as writers for the episodes, while Bouchard was also attributed as contributing to certain dialogue material. is referenced by Zap2it.com which lists the cast. Another references used elsewhere actually state taht cast created or wrote or improvised the scripts. this is synthesis again. Combining two separate sources to support a statement. In fact if you sued [4] this actually lists the writers. To combine spearate refs to support statemenst in the way you are doing is WP:OR. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the statement then. It's as simple as that. :=D The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring by SuperFlash101 edit
The above user has twice reverted the addition of perfectly valid tags to this article, despite having the rationale for them clearly explained. Further reversion will result in a report at WP:3RR. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- What? Seriously? I had justified reasons to revert both times, and the second time you gave me permission to. The sole reason I am under the assumption that you have a personal vendetta against me and/or these articles is justified further by these contradictory actions on your part. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 01:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)