Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)/archive2

< 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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:54, 12 July 2014 [1].

Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)

edit
Nominator(s): Me5000 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 animated series Napoleon Dynamite. I have improved this article substantially and it is now a Good Article. I previously nominated it for featured article, but it was not promoted and I received very little input. I made every suggested improvement from the previous nomination and I think this article is ready for featured article status. Me5000 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first glance it seems very short --Noah¢s (Talk) 07:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Noahcs The show had an extremely short run and was cancelled. I've scoured the web for sources(some of which took a lot of digging) and this is all I could find. Me5000 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do the previous FA reviewers User:Curly Turkey and User:Tezero want to give some input here? Me5000 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my complaints being addressed at the previous FAC and nothing catching my eye this time around. Tezero (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being short isn't an issue if it's comprehensive—there are number of FAs shorter than this article. At first glance I can see it definitely needs a copyedit—three sentences in a row begin with "the series" in the opening paragraph. I'm pretty sure the table of the cast could be made more accessible. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Curly Turkey I read through the article and did some copy editing, let me know if it was sufficient. As for the table of the cast, I've been racking my brains over this. I think you suggest that the cast, characters, descriptions, and pictures should all be one table? The picture table was already there before I started working on the article and after fooling around with it, looking at other pages, and looking at help topics, I could not figure how to do a table. I tried integrating the pictures into the bullet list, but that didn't look good. I'm not sure how I can address this problem beyond deleting the pictures all together. Me5000 (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

edit
  • I've given the article a quick copyedit. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
  • "We’d always felt that, if we continued the world, animation would be the way to do it because everybody gets old and it was a movie that took place in high school.": I'd paraphrase this rather than quote it—it's got a rambling quality to it that doesn't flow well with the rest of the text, and takes extra effort in a written context to decipher: what's "the world"? "everybody gets old and it was a movie that took place in high school."—it took a a minute to realize that this referred to the problem of the actors outgrowing their parts.
  • Jared Hess met with writer-producer Mike Scully to propose an animated version of the film: meaning they met so Hess could propose the series to Scully, or they met for the purpose of developing a proposal?
  • schedule without Napoleon Dynamite listed, officially canceling the series: something doesn't ring right about having the series left off the menu equating to "officially canceling"
  • who enjoys four-wheeling: who enjoys what?
  • "Guest stars": I doubt you'd have a list of guest stars if the series had been longer-lived. Maybe move mention of them to the episode descriptions?
  • said that she wasn't a fan of the movie or the animated series: somehow this doesn't seem like much of a criticism. I'm not a fan of Chopin, bu that's not the same as calling him "lame".
  • A lot of the quotes aren't particularly quotable—I'd paraphrase at least a few of them.
  • it had an averaged 2.8 share: what does this mean?
  • Can we get a date for the show's premiere on Global? Or at least a better source—the one used is only an announcement, and isn't evidence that the show actually did run.

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • He boasts about knowing all the secret ninja moves from the government and his girlfriend in Oklahoma.: does he actually have a girlfriend in Oklahoma to boast about?
  • User:Curly Turkey I was under the impression that sources used for opinion were fine as long it was clear it was someone's opinion and clear whose opinion it was. I also found the review under "critic reviews" on Metacritic[5] and I used featured article The Wire as one of my model articles to help write Napoleon Dynamite; The Wire has a line in the critical reception about Metacritic's score, so I thought anything from Metacritic would be acceptable in the crtiical reception section. Me5000 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else need to be done User:Curly Turkey? Me5000 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we still need a summary of the film. Otherwise, statements like "Kip hasn't met Lafawnduh yet, but Pedro has been elected class president" are simply gibberish. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Curly Turkey Done. Me5000 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose → Comments. I don't see this as close to FA level. There is not enough information for someone new to the series, and what there is could be presented in a much better way. Some examples:

  • I found some new information according to Jared and Jerusha it takes place near the end of the film and according to Mike Scully there is no continuity, they only transferred the premise and characters. I changed it to address this, have another look at it and tell what you think should be done. Me5000 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse, I'm afraid: the reader has no idea who the characters mentioned are, as they're introduced in the next para. EddieHugh (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I switched around the order. I think this fixes the problem. Me5000 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I wrote a parargraph about the events of the movie. Me5000 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original cast from the film, [...] voice their characters". Why not put this in Cast rather than Premise?
    Moved. Me5000 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rex, Summer, and Don appear to mentioned nowhere except in the list of characters (which is under Cast...); I see a llama (?) in the infobox and it's mentioned in some sources, but not in this article.
  • I don't understand. Do you want me to remove Rex, Summer and Don from the cast list? I don't see llama mentioned in the infobox or anywhere in this article, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Me5000 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The llama's in the image. I'm not sure it's important, but then, I haven't seen the show or read the sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. To be honest I don't remember anything about the llamma in any of the sources and I don't know what could be said about it. In the movie the llama is just there for one joke where Napoleon feeds it and I don't recall the llama being in the show. Me5000 (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect some info on who/what the characters are. EddieHugh (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into it the recurring characters were only in one episode, so I moved them in the episode descriptions as guest stars. Me5000 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the photos of the actors of two sizes?
    • A weird glitch in the gallery code makes rows of images that come close to the screen edge resize themselves to fill to the edge of the screen. If your screen is small enough that the images break into two rows, then one route will be resized while the other, shorter one won't. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Season 1" or "first season" appear a few times, but there was only one.
  • No information in the text on how the episodes were made.
  • This is something I thought about adding, but I decided against it for 2 reasons; 1. There isnt that much info about it, I could probably only write a paragraph; 2. Looking at the information about the process, it was the same process as any other animated show, so I thought adding it would be repetitive. Let me know what you think, I'll still add it if you think it needs it. Me5000 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something about the artists, directors, producers... EddieHugh (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources and the only information about that I could find was there were 12 writers(unnamed), the animation was done by Rough Draft Studios, the Hesses and Scully wrote and produced. Is this enough information to be added? It would be probably two sentences and I'm not sure where I would add it. Me5000 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many quotes in Reception. A lot of these would be better paraphrased. "Lori Rackl of the Chicago Sun-Times said she did not like the movie and thought the animated series was even worse." This tells the reader only that one person didn't like it; the source gives some reasons/descriptive info, which are what's required. "Robert Bianco of USA Today disliked the first episode, but was fond of the second one saying he would have to wait and see which episode represents the show's direction." Again, 'he disliked it' tells the reader nothing useful; and what happened to his later opinion?
  • Removed some quotes(let me know if it is enough). Added more info for the Chicago and USA Today parts. I don't understand what you are asking about his later opinion or what "later opinion" refers to. Me5000 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"he would have to wait and see which episode represents the show's direction" – what did he report after waiting and seeing? "it was "far funnier" than Bob's Burgers and Allen Gregory" (what were they?). "because he could not see "Jon Heder's expressionless face" as he talked" (a good example of where the reader doesn't have enough background info – how would a reader know that an actor's lack of expression was a cause for amusement in the original (I assume that's the case)? A photo of him grinning doesn't help. Did the animated versions look like the actors? Did the animated version not have a blank expression?) "a "vulgarized premiere" that took away what made the film unique" (what was unique? Vulgarized in what sense?) I realize that some of these Qs probably can't be answered, but that raises the matter of whether the content that leads to them should remain. EddieHugh (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He never reported on Napoleon dynamite again as I said below, there were no reviews for episodes 3-6(with the exception of the 3 sites I found and mentioned below and don't know if they are acceptable for use); Fixed Bob's Allen; Don't know what to say on this one, it's someone else's review and he doesn't go into detail about it. I don't know what one would say about it either..."Some audiences found humor in Jon Heder's stoner look from the movie"? I made that up so that would be original research, I don't understand what you want me to do.; Again no idea what to say, here is the guys entire review word for word:"Despite the participation of the movie's creators and the voices of the original cast, tonight's vulgarized premiere removes much of what made the film special and leaves just another second-rate Fox cartoon. But the second episode at 9:30 ET/PT is a sweeter, funnier improvement. We'll have to wait and see which represents the show's actual direction." He doesn't go into any detail as to why he thinks that, just that he thinks that. Me5000 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead: "an unusually short run of six episodes" (is "unusually short" justified from the main text?); "The first season of the series ranked sixth among teen viewers" (for what?); why summarize the critical response to the first episode only?
  • Removed unusually; I think I cleared up the teen viewers rank part; Except for the USA Today review all the reviews are structured as though the first 2 episodes(they aired on the same night) were one episode or they simply only reviewed the first episode and never mentioned the second. Unfortunately, there are no reviews for Episodes 3 through 6. UPDATE: Actually after a quick google search I see there are reviews, but I'm not sure what sites would acceptable I'm mainly seeing bubbleblabber.com, a few from paste magazine, flickering myth, are these acceptable sites for reviews? Me5000 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, capitalization in the references section is inconsistent. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See manual of style on titles. EddieHugh (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Me5000 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it from the reader's perspective. For instance, "he would have to wait and see which episode represents the show's direction" inevitably leads to the Q that I raised (which episode represented the direction?)... if it can't be answered, then the text that led to it shouldn't be in the article. Some of the text you've added is ok, but there are more problems because of it. e.g., "Napoleon's friends are Pedro, who is the class president" (what class?); "to a woman named Lafawnduh, who he says he is developing a serious relashionship" (spelling and grammar); "Kip hasn't met Lafawnduh" (another contraction); "While Scully said they transferred the characters and premise, but not the events of the film" (grammar). I've done what I can... change my 'oppose' to 'comments' if you wish, but I won't be able to support. EddieHugh (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh: I thin you'Ll agree that an awful lot of work has been put into cleaning this article up since 23W and I adopted it after Me5000 suddenly retired. Would you care to take another look at it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's better. To me, though, it looks a bit patched together: for instance, paras 1 and 2 of Premise have some repetition and could be linked more smoothly. I'll change the title of my contributions to 'comments', as I indicated earlier, so I'll leave my conclusion as neutral. EddieHugh (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the premise to remove repetition. Was there anything else you had issues with? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption by Curly Turkey

edit

I'm going to take a stab at bringing the article to FA status—maybe silly since I haven't seen the show, but I feel like it's not far as it is. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Curly Turkey

edit
  • Well, I think I'm done whatever I'm going to do with this article: prose is tightened, some refs have been added, others dropped, and everything has been more or less cleaned up. If I weren't involved now, I'd support, as I think the article is sufficiently comprehensive and well written and organized. I hope a couple more editors will take the time to look at it now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Hi Curly, appreciate your efforts adopting this nom but having remained open quite a while it does seem to have stalled without achieving sufficient support to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2014 (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/Napoleon_Dynamite_(TV_series)/archive2&oldid=618558679"