Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive5

< 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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [1].

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic edit

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Princess Celestia... (that joke's probably not funny anymore)

If you were on the Internet during the early 2010s, then chances are you've heard of this little girls' "toy advertisement" or, more likely, their fandom: the "bronies". While some might find it unsurprising these days, it was hugely unexpected that adult men would get attached to a show about singing, pastel ponies designed to sell toys to the point that it became one of 2011's best Internet memes (that's not just me, look it up). Really, this show is great. Don't question that.

But we're not talking about the show's quality. We're talking about this article's. Hopefully, it can exemplify Wikipedia's best work but it may not. This article has gone through four featured article nominations prior to this one, all nominated by different editors in the first half of the last decade. Ten years since the article's first nomination (intentional), let's try again. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm very nervous :P. I'd like to thank Wingwatchers, SNUGGUMS and Z1720 for commenting on the article's most recent peer review and all those who commented on reviews and nominations before that... (how do I end this?) Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Per WP:FILMCAST, can citations be added to the cast section? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um... what? Firstly, this is not a film list; secondly, it says citations are only needed for uncredited roles, which aren't present here (seriously, even "Gravy Boat" is credited). Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, I am only suggesting that adding them would be sohow conveniently helpful, I guess that's optional. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Pamzeis (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, switching topic.., ref #12 is permanent deadlinked and there isn't an archive link attached to it. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've removed it as it's not necessary anyways. Pamzeis (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wingwatchers. It has been almost a week since you left your last comment, and I was wondering whether you were going to leave more or were in a position to support or oppose? Neither is obligatory, of course. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would have to see the final results and comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass edit

With the three-week-mark approaching, and little progress, I'll attempt for the image review.

Overall, looks fine on images. Would appreciate if you could clarify just one point above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your image review, Kavyansh.Singh! I have responded to the one point above, hopefully satisfactorily. If there's anything else you'd like to point out, please do! Again, thank you! Pamzeis (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that my concerns have been addressed to satisfactory level. Both the non-free files are used to depict fairly different things. So coordinators can considered this a pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks — Pass edit

Version reviewed — this. Have randomly selected these references for spot-checking by a random number selector:

  • Ref#133 — OK (link)
  • Ref#87 — OK (link)
  • Ref#57 — Mostly OK, but which part of the source cited that "she is allowed be as exaggerated"? (link)
    • "I can go as over the top as I want"
  • Ref#75 — OK (link)
  • Ref#10 — OK (link)
  • Ref#77 — OK (link)
  • Ref#85 — OK (link)
  • Ref#152 — OK (link)
  • Ref#164 — OK (link)
  • Ref#62 — OK (link)
  • Ref#39 — OK (link)
  • Ref#139 — Mostly OK, but which part of the source cited that [t]he "series had a triple-digit year-to-year growth"? (link)
    • If you scroll down to "Year-to-Year Program Highlights (all times ET)" and look at the bit regarding MLP:FIM, it says that the growth for demographics are: "Kids 2-11 (297%), Kids 6-11 (+83%), Adults 18-49 (+226%), Women 18-49 (+1033%), Adults 25-54 (+231%), Women 25-54 (+1067%), Persons 2+ (+173%), and Households (+131%)", which is triple-digit; I noticed, however, that there was also quadruple-digit growth so I've added that to the article.
  • Ref#41 — OK, but I doubt the source's reliability (link)
    • Just a note on this source that it's from the show's creator, Lauren Faust

With almost all the source verifying the prose, just some clarification needed at few points. Rest, I think, the spot-checking here is mostly fine. Though, this is not a complete source review. Someone needs to check for Formatting and Reliability of sources. Ping me if I need to do more spot-checks, but much of it appears all right. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the spot-checks, Kavyansh.Singh. I have responded to the above. Pamzeis (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinators may consider this one a pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has garnered no general supports. Unless considerable further progress is made towards a consensus to support by the three week mark I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not gathering any momentum and so I am going to archive it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic/archive5&oldid=1052402442"