Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wishology/archive3

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 GrahamColm 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Wishology

Nominator(s): Mouseinphilly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the introduction gives out detail of the episodes. It shows why it's notable. There is no poor grammar or poorly worded statements. I like how the plot is split into parts, and there is outstanding reception and production sections. Mouseinphilly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Broken reference templates, far too much referenced to primary sources (at a minimum, none of the Nickelodeon or Frederator Studious sources are independent), dead/mistargeted links (reference 18, at least), and several sources about whose reliability I will need some convincing. Outside of references, the quality of the plot summary prose is perhaps the greatest concern; while there have certainly been changes made since the second FAC, the fundamental objections about readability and tone still apply. Additionally, other prose is short of the expected brilliance for FAC (one particularly striking sentence from the lead: "The film centers on the show's main character, 10-year-old Timmy Turner, his fairy godparents Cosmo and Wanda, and his baby fairy godbrother Poof, all of whom grant Timmy's wishes.") and the level of detail in the Cultural References section exceeds what policy would suggest (especially as it is all, or nearly all, referenced to primary source material only). There is no discussion of home media releases. In general, this article needs to more closely regard WP:MOSTV. And finally, File:The Fairly OddParents- Wishology.gif appears to be improperly licensed; this is an advertising poster but the use rationale and license both treat it as a screenshot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose -- the nominator has made 0 edits to the article, and has not demonstrated anything that could convince me that he/she will see this nomination through to the end. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal Clearly not ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2013 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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