Wikipedia:Featured article review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 20:43, 29 May 2010 [1].

Degrassi: The Next Generation edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Matthewedwards, Starsking, L0b0t, Bearcat, Ckatz, WikiProject Degrassi, WikiProject Toronto, WikiProject Canadian TV shows, WikiProject Television.

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it hasn't been maintained to the standard of a featured article, since being featured. Some content is a year old, some references are broken, and there is no consistence for writing a reference. It is the featured and main article of an inactive project. 117Avenue (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site, degrassi.tv that is used as a reference seven times, requires registration to view the content.
Many, many dead links.
No Alt text. [2] —Mike Allen 05:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I started work on this late last night and I'll get to it again this afternoon. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem I'm having with this is that I don't watch the show any more. Once the majority of original cast left and they started bringing in new kids in season 7, I pretty much stopped watching. I haven't even seen an episode of seasons eight or nine, so it's become difficult for me to keep up with the article and keep reign on what all the 12-year-old fans keep adding in. :(

So far I've made some improvements to the prose and added a couple of references here and there. I've just finished doing the Broadcast/Distribution section, and I'll get to the Impact section tomorrow. Other than a few updates in the Cast and broadcast sections, not much of the article to this point needed updating. Certainly the production section didn't need much. The ratings, awards and reception subsections could do with being updated to more recent seasons, and I'll work on that next. I'll take a look at the Complementary media and merchandise sections after that.

After all that is done, I'll review the references, especially the dead ones and those that require registration to access, and look for better alternatives. Hopefully I'll be able to get it all done in the time allowed. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: alt text is no longer required by the FA criteria, and there is nothing wrong with web references that require registration as long as they are marked as such. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb is right about ALT text no longer required. See here. Now about the citing sources that require registration, I'm pretty sure that is discouraged, especially when there are so many listed. Other sources can't be found? I've seen many editors (admins) remove links from references because of this. —Mike Allen 18:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no policies or guidelines advising against them. Now, if there are free-access sources that can source the same info, then they are probably better. However, just because a source cannot be seen without registration does not mean it cannot be used. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this. I need to update the Awards and critical reception sections, and then decide what to do with the mess that is Complementary media. Then I'll work on finding alternative refs and fixing the dead ones Matthewedwards : Chat 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is work progressing on this? Dana boomer (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm collecting information regarding what awards the series has won or been nominated for in the last two years. I shouldn't think it will take me much longer - maybe by the weekend. Then I just need to write it all up and insert it into the article. I'll try to find references that do not require registering at the official site, but because that is not totally necessary, it's not my main priority right now. Matthewedwards : Chat 00:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing. This has been at FAR for over three weeks, so moving it here to give it a bit of a push. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Still a couple improperly formatted references, an under-construction tag. Media section has several one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Keep all issues now taken care of. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I forgot all about this nomination. OK, I'll get on it. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished updating the section about awards, and I've removed the under-construction template. Now working on the structure of the Media section. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually removed the Media section. It was basically a list of all the stuff you could buy or download, or anything else that had any sort of link to the series, including "events" the US broadcasting network had put together, and the majority of it had all creeped in over the last couple of years. I did extensive reviews on Google, Google News, ProQuest, Press Display, etc etc, and found no secondary sources that could indicate their notability. Yes, they exist and there are references for that, but I didn't feel it meets WP's policies and guidelines. I moved the section to the talk page instead. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that has been brought up has now been addressed.

The article has been updated through to the 2009-2010 television season (season 9 of Degrassi)
all references have been standardized, using citation templates, Commonwealth date format, title case for page titles.
All deadlinks have been replaced (none have been removed, I've either hunted down updated URLs or archives)
There are two references that point to degrassi.tv, but as is stated in the article, these are written by the Exec producer of the show, and that can be verified by a RS. There is no feasible way of changing these, and according to the discussion above, they should be okay.
Prose has been tightened. The Media section has been removed as I was unable to ascertain its notability
Under-construction tags have been removed.

I think that's everything. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My concerns have been addressed. It seems other concerns have too. So I believe this article should be kept as a FA. Good work. —Mike Allen 05:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all Matthewedwards : Chat 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~I'm not happy with the prose~~. Tony (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I've gone through the top, copy-editing and unlinking redundant or low-value links. Needs the same treatment throughout. BTW, see the WikiProject for talk of how poor the genre articles are. I unlinked "teen drama" because it's just ... not helpful. Tony (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to go through it again and tidy it up some more. What is it about the prose that you're unhappy with? The language, and structure, or overlinking and other MOS-related stuff? Matthewedwards : Chat 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The theme music, "Whatever It Takes", was written by Austin Russell, Jody Colero and Stephen Stohn. McGrath composed the music, and Colero and Stohn wrote the lyrics which include the lines". Can this be rationalised? I'm confused: what did Russell do? Why not just specify the composer (usually first), with lyrics by blah and blah? Tony (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images: if this FAR is headed towards "keep" territory, it should have an image review (consider asking User:Jappalang or User:Fasach Nua). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for Jappalang - if we don't hear from him in a couple of days I'll leave a note for Fasach, then move on to some of the other image reviewers. Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: failure to comply with WP:NFCC

File:Emma Nelson (season 1).jpg: Per caption, this image is only to illustrate a character, not for any critical commentary. Nothing is written of the appearance of this character. Based on "Moore realized that the character Emma Nelson, born at the end of Degrassi Junior High's second season, would soon be entering junior high school, and development for the series took a new direction by focused on Emma and her school experiences.", there is nothing here to suggest that the appearance (rather it is the age—the concept of a junior high student) is the cause of inspiration for the offshoot series. The image does not "illustrate that Degrassi was created because of Emma's birth during Degrassi Junior High" (she is born as a teenager?) either.

File:Dtng intertitles.PNG: No critical commentaries can be found of the intertitles; i.e. the text has no critical remarks of what impact these comestic changes have on the show or audience, nor of any outrage or fawning by the fans or wider communities over them. Neither does it "commentary on the plot outline." File:D-TNG logo.PNG already serves as the series logo and lede image; there is no need to spam its variations within the article.

File:Smith Mewes Morrisette Degrassi.jpg: None of the rationales written qualify. No critical commentary is written of the appearance of these characters (cast in the context of the show). Mewes, Smith, and Morisette have their own articles and their "free photos". This image is purely decorative (just to show the characters).

It is my view the three above images would unlikely meet NFCC requirements without substantial addition of critical commentaries that require illustration by those images. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that there isn't enough to be said that would help keep the images. You're right in all you've said so I've removed them from the article. Thanks for giving me the nudge to remove them. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissension stricken with removal of images. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see that a good deal of work and improvements went into this page during this process, nice work. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matthewedwards : Chat 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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