Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation/archive2

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 not promoted by Laser brain 21:57, 3 February 2011 [1].

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation edit

Nominator(s): Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A feature-length animated sequel from Canada, released in March 1986. Getting this in before the 25th anniversary, now that it seems I've exhausted almost every possible source at my disposal. Wish me luck, Bears. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:CBMII soundtrack cover.jpg should not be used- album covers are fine in the article about the album, but usually not elsewhere. Both the screenshots use a template rationale which was recently deleted as invalid- the rationales should really be updated with purpose-written rationales, but you need to ask whether they are both needed. The inclusion of the new characters and the fourth-wall scene are important, and worthy of discussion, but are non-free images really needed? J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from contributor: A soundtrack article would be feasible, provided said release was notable enough. Apparently, that won't be the case in the foreseeable future; I don't think it ever charted on the Billboard 200. As for the rationales, I'll try to fix them (just in case the rest of the bunch survive the process). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Clarify what source ref 9 is citing
Ref 16: from the link to Take One I learn that the magazine ceased publication in 1979, and that this September 1996 article must therefore come from its successor, Take #1. This should be clarified, and the link piped accordingly.
Ref 37: Both links in the citation are to WP articles. What article is being quoted here?
To what citation does the apparently detached text above ref 56 relate?
Ref 66: What makes http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/carebears2.php a high quality reliable source?
Ref 93: What makes http://www.movieretriever.com/faq#7 a high quality reliable source?
General point: for well-recognised newspapers (The New York Times, The Times, Toronto Star etc) it is not necessary to include the publisher's name. This should be given for local or lesser-known publications.

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --Pres N 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW. Lacks an adequate analysis. No themes section. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't notice the Allusions section. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.