Talk:Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mainframe Entertainment's 2003 Scary Godmother adaptation was initially planned to be a launch for an episodic television show based on Jill Thompson's series of books that ultimately never happened? Source: "This property has been out for a while and it's bounced around in terms of whether or not we wanted to do one-hour specials or if we wanted to go as a series. People didn't understand it from a series point of view and they were looking at it as a special or direct-to-video type of thing. And we didn't really want to do that because it's better in the long term for us to invest this much money and build something for it to be a series." [1]
  • ALT1:... that the animated Halloween ratings hit Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular was based on a stage production that ran at a community theater in Chicago? Source: "'A community theater group in Chicago put on a play, adapted from [Jill] Thompson's first [Scary Godmother] book, which was the basis of our project,' explains [director Zeke] Norton." [2] "It's actually based on the books and the stage play Jill Thompson and Runamuck Productions put together." [3]
  • ALT2:... that Mainframe Entertainment's stylized look for their 2003 computer-animated Scary Godmother special, which mixes 3D characters with 3D backgrounds black-edged to look 2D, was to avoid comparisons to theatrical CGI films by investors? Source: "'When we go out and pitch product for TV, the standard they hold us to is theatrical features. And worse than that, there's a potential stigma that affects the entire computer animation business: If one company doesn’t do something well, all the companies are tarred with the same brush.' DiDio sees artist-driven stylization as one way to avoid being compared to big-budget theatricals. 'We want to develop multiple looks for Mainframe; we don’t want to have a house style,’ he says. ‘Scary Godmother, Dots Bots and Gate Crasher: All three of them are trying to push the boundaries of what people perceive computer animation to be in different ways.'" [4]

Created by HumanxAnthro (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC).

• The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The hooks are directly cited. A QPQ is not needed. I am approving ALT0 or ALT2 as the most interesting. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT2, but I do not see this hook fact with an inline cite in the article: which mixes 3D characters with 3D backgrounds black-edged to look 2D. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah The fact is in an image caption. I don't remember if that is acceptable for DYK. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SL93: it would be fine, if it had an inline cite. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, you did that! Thanks. Restoring your tick. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SL93: Um, now the only problem is ALT2 is 234 characters long. All the hooks are rather wordy. Could you suggest an alt? 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah I think the excess can just be removed. ... that Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular mixes 3D characters with 3D backgrounds black-edged to look 2D to avoid comparisons with theatrical CGI films by investors? SL93 (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• OK, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments later in the week. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Using Amazon as a reference doesn't seem like a good choice per WP:AMAZON. I suggest replacing it with this.
  • Done HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• As the two references after "first book" are already in #Background_and_development, they're not necessary for the lead.
  • Done HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Everything else looks good.

Plot

• "Katie, Bert and Daryl" → "Katie, Bert, and Daryl"
• "Bert, Daryl and Katie" → "Bert, Daryl, and Katie"
• "He declares himself the "leader" out of nowhere by winning a rock, paper, scissors game." → "He declares himself the "leader" after winning a rock, paper, scissors game."
  • All of the following above done HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Background and development

• "US$350,000" → "$350,000"
• "vice president Kim Dent Wilder" → "Mainframe vice president Kim Dent Wilder"
• "a TV series" → "a television series"
  • All above done HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Production

Workflow

• In the last paragraph of this section, remove the last part of the quote "and generally bugged everyone several times a week with my yammering phone calls" as it seems unnecessary, and add an [and] in-between "designed sets, painted backgrounds".
  • Done HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Casting

• This section looks good.

Animation

• ""blend"ing" → "blending"
  • Done HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Visual style

• This section also looks good.

Release

• This reference in the article says the film went to Region 1 DVD on September 3, not September 8. Also, change this in the lead.
• "Germany and Italy" → "Germany, and Italy"
  • All above done HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• "The Chicago Tribune" → "The Chicago Tribune"
  • Done HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Overview

GAN table

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

• @HumanxAnthro: I just finished adding most, if not all of the rest of my notes. The article is well-written but has a few issues to address. Leave comments and ping me back, and I hope I can promote this article to GA-status soon. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: All completed HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)