Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scooby-Doo/archive1

Scooby-Doo edit

Help, I'm trying to nominate Scooby Doo for FA, but apparently my Newb-ness is overwhelming mt ability to follow simple instructions. Reimelt 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Okay, I think I've got it now. In any event, stumbled on the Scooby article and was impressed with its quality--especially for an article about a cartoon show. And no, I did not work on it. Reimelt 01:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Surprisingly good, but needs more inline citations. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on Ryan's objection, you'd need to add inline citatations where the text quotes a number, or something contentious, or pathbreaking. Else having an overabundance of refs would make it untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, on re-reading it does need more inline cites. One question though--what would you say is "contentious"? I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm genuinely confused as to what's disputed or controversial about a cartoon.Reimelt 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  No fight :) I've given a general idea where inline refs are called for. It need not apply for this article, but it would set you on the right for future articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- ToC needs to be shortened, summarise content, left-aligned pics push the headings left, please right-align such ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - There are 9 copyrighted images in the article with fair-use rationals that are either underdeveloped or missing all together. These images have to have rationals.--P-Chan 02:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object Images need a fair use rationle Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big thank you for the rationales; there is a LOT of citing to be done, and not having to worry so much about pics is a big help.Reimelt 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by op ~~Clearly, the pics must have rationales as to fair-use, and should probably be right-aligned;~~ does anyone have any non-pic objections? It seems to me the most serious problem is the citing--anything else? (Oh, and I realize now I should have had it peer-reviewed first, to catch the obvious pic rationale problem. I apologize for my inexperience.) Reimelt 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article also needs to undergo a major case of copy-editing. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) should give a good idea as to what is expected.--P-Chan 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added fair use rationales, I may work on the article when I got time Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lack of proper referencing using footnotes for all facts mentioned throughout the article. There are only 3 footnotes. — Wackymacs 08:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now, images and needs references as per above. I've copy-edited it, as there was quite a few typos. I do like the article, though. Proto||type 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements on copyediting; I will try to improve further. ~~Question--where can I find instructions as to how to move pictures?~~71.224.192.29 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reimelt 15:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I like this article. Close to FA status. It needs more references. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Close, real close. Fix the above and FA should be no problem. Rlevse 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two solid thumbs up, but oppose until there are references. Fantastic article; needs a bit of copyediting as well, but the inline cites are the big deal. Great job to whoever wrote this article. The Disco King 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object lack of free images. Computerjoe's talk 09:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? How exactly can you get many free images for a TV show? Most of them are video screenshots, which are covered under fair use and obviously a free use replacement cannot be made for those.— Wackymacs 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:IMG 1794.JPG is a free image, tangential to the actual article though it is IMHO. --FuriousFreddy 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Much better than most articles, but I don't think it's quite FA material. Needs to be run through to rm some POV, and could use copyedit in some sections. Very close, though. - Mike(talk) 14:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a lot (probably most) of the editing work on this article, and whilke I was slowly working towards a possible FAC, it most certaintly wasn't ready for it at this point. Oh well. What specifically needs to be directly referenced in the article (it's probably a matter of simply using direct citations to the existing reference sources). --FuriousFreddy 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]