Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

< 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:46, 23 September 2008 [1].

Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

edit
Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)


The pilot episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation, and currently the only episodic article for the series. It's also my first attempt at an episode-related article. Thanks go to User:The Rambling Man, User:Tony1, and the GA reviewer, User:97198 for helping me getting it this far. I don't think I can add anything else to the article, so here goes...! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


image comment - Image:Mother and Child Reunion (DTNG).JPG does not appear to meet WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I believe #8 is rather subjective. Either way, the image depicts the beginning of the climax of the internet stalker storyline, which is one of the major scenes in the episode and explicitly mentioned in the plot and reception sections. It also demonstrates what the two characters look like, which is impossible to recreate with a free image because the characters appearances have changed due to aging. For me, it is sufficiently appropriate per NFC. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of images (criteria 3), failure to meet WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who'd have thought¡؟ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume most people who would check this article with the requirements of WP:NFCC. If you want to know what the actors look like you have Image:MaCR press conference.jpg, a capture of a mentioned scene is really isnt a valid justification of significant increase in understanding. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the actors look like, not the characters. It's not just that the scene is mentioned in the plot, otherwise I might agree, but that that storyline and the execution of it was discussed by outside sources, making that interaction especially notable. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at some of the Doctor Who FAs, eg. "The Stolen Earth", for examples on how to make the infobox image work with NFCC (look at the corresponding FACs too). Giggy (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. Hopefully it now meets NFCC regulations.[2] Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

the problem is that you can't mix the styles, even for Harvard purposes. They give inconsistent results and Sandy tells me they don't play well together. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the Harvard referencing work if I use cite book? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just tested it. The answer to that is no. So what's next? Using Template:citation throughout? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to the editors of the article. I just point out the issues such as this. And I don't do the {{citation}} templates at all, so I can't really help you with the technical issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I removed the citation template, because it would have been a technical nightmare trying to get that to work instead of {{cite episode}} and a couple of others. Of course, this means the harvard referencing doesn't work any more, but either way something had to be sacrificed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article has harvard links that don't link. If you use the Harvnb template, you have to use citation. If you use cite xxx, a different method of linking, or no linking, is needed. Now there's a mish-mash, neither-nor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for catching that. I'll fix it right now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I made the reference formatting changes you commented on in the edit summary. [3] Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe hollywood.com is okay because [4] "Hollywood.com is owned by R&S Investments, LLC, which is owned by Mitchell Rubenstein and Laurie Silvers, who previously founded the Sci-Fi Channel. The President and Chief Operating Officer of Hollywood.com is Kevin Davis, who formerly was Vice President and General Manager of Variety.com." It isn't just some bedroom hobby of someone's. Also, it appears there is a Hollywood.com tv cable channel in the US, [5]. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the information being sourced to it, I can deal with this. However, I would be much more worried about using it for contentious information.
OK, I will keep looking around for a "better" site, but considering the actors have done very little, I'll be surprised if I find anything. There is one alternative and that's saying the information can instead be verified by watching the closing credits of the episode. I don't like to do that unless as a last resort though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove template: Resolved comments from CollectionianSandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments, Woops, I didn't realize this was an FAC when I just hit the article and tagged it for issues thinking it should be aiming for FA! :-P As per the tags, I feel the plot summary is too long, even for a two part episode. Its logging in at over 1000 words for me, and that's excessive. It should be maybe half that length. There are also a few unsourced statements in the production and reception sections. I'm also unclear as to what the lawsuit has to do with this specific episode rather than the series as a whole? In the production section, there is a whole paragraph that again, seems to be more about the series as a whole and not this specific episode, and even if this was one of the fedora episodes. Also, the reception section seems smaller than I would have expected. Was there any feedback/discussion/impact on the series starting with the issues presented in this episode with the internet stalker, potential child molestation (or worse), etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for commenting. I myself have wondered about the length of the plot section and even asked for comments about it at the Peer Review, but I didn't get any. Anyway, there is no hard rule or guideline about it. The essay, WP:Plot summaries, says, "Plot summaries should be between 300 and 500 words for a typical episode or story, and longer as needed for adequate discussion of a longer work, especially if the plot is very complicated." I don't think this is a typical episode -- it's the pilot episode. The article is also about two half-hour episodes, so the plot should be allowed to be twice as long as a regular half-hour episode article. However, I also get that a plot summary is not a recap, as WP:PLOTSUM says.
I saw you added {{refimprove}}. I'd have preferred it if you could have used the in-line template {{fact}} so I knew which bits you meant. I have removed the paragraph regarding the website lawsuit. I'm not exactly sure if you mean the fedora paragraph in the production section isn't specific, but I think it is. The things mentioned there occurred only in this episode, not every episode in the series. If it is a different episode, please identify it so I can try to address it.
With regards to the reception, I accessed every article on the internet that mentions this episode, and the majority have been used. I also used Canadian Newsstand which covers most newspapers in Canada dating back to ~1977. Again, any that discussed it were used. There was nothing regarding the internet predator storyline's impact on the series or Canadian kids TV. I really have used everything worth using. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTV also discusses plot, and gives the same general guideline. However, one could also look at this as a short film, and look to WP:MOSFILM for additional guidance, which allows 400-700 words for a typical length film. As such, even for a pilot episode of roughly one hour in length, over 1000 words is too long. If I'd realized it was at FAC before tagging, I'd have just dropped a note here. :P One of the two instances is gone with that paragraph removal. For the Fedora, the paragraph mentions a later episode where it appears and it seems to imply its a regular thing, not just a two episode issue? And pooh on no one addressing the storyline's possible impact. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this right now.. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all issues have been addressed and I can see any other issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it's much appreciated Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've never even heard of this, so no views on facts at all. I made a couple of minor edits, couldn't see much else wrong, and the prose was good enough to keep me reading something in which I have no real interest. jimfbleak (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. If it kept you reading, it's done its job :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Why aren't the quotations cited in the lead? Also, the attribution for the third quote is entirely missing.
      • Because they're used again in the reception section and referenced there. I could reference them again here, but generally anything in the lead that is repeated in the main sections is not usually cited. I fixed the attribution for the third one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the pull quote from the co-creator/creative consultant in the Reception section?
      • Well, the comments are about how the characters were to be recieved by viewers, compared to other shows, so I think it fits here as well as it would in the Casting section, it's just that there is already a quotebox there. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "instead of digging up Screech and the gang..." Would at the very least need to link Screech; not a cultural reference that every reader will get. But even a link will not give any insight into the meaning behind this reference for those unknowledgeable...is the reference in the quote a bit too esoteric for general readership in an encyclopedia? Something to think about, perhaps.
    • Page number for Playback magazine ref?

• email) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 05:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I found this on the feedback request template. I believe this is the first TV review I've done, and I admit to being surprised that this hasn't received more support. Quite good overall, but still a few picky things here and there.

  • Plot: Seeing some tens here. Most of the time, these are given as numbers, though this varies by editor.
  • Why is internet not capitalized here.
  • "As the evening progresses, Joey overhears Keith and Alison and flirting with each other..."
  • "and Alison has to tell Keith about Keith's hesitance about getting married." Redundancy here with about. Try to change one of them.
  • Production: "Co-creater Schuyler with her husband and Epitome Pictures partner Stohn served as executive producers." If the sentence is to be structured this way, two commas would be beneficial for readibility.
  • "Filming began July 3..." Every other date is given the opposite way. Is the preferred method different for dates without years?
  • United States really doesn't need a link.
  • Back to Plot: "Spike and Snake arrive just in time save her..." Missing word.
  • Cast: A structure suggestion: Move the one-sentence paragraph at the end up to the end of the section's second paragraph. It would be a great fit there. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The image caption has been expanded since my review, and I don't have any problems with it. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check the dab links with the dab finder (really, reviewers should be checking those, not me). There are two dab links in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mother_and_Child_Reunion_(Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation)&oldid=1138467218"