Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dexter's Laboratory/archive4

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Dexter's Laboratory

Dexter's Laboratory

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has not been reviewed properly in a number of years, and I would like to eventually promote this to FA status. It is currently a GA and has been since 2013. Its most recent FA nomination in 2021 closed without attention or support, and the 2018 peer review went unnoticed. I've spent the past few months improving this article in every way I can think of, so further input would be appreciated!

Thanks, — Paper Luigi T • C 03:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have some scattered thoughts, but as a whole I don't think anything is wrong with the article. I am unfamiliar with anything regarding animation so forgive any potential ignorance.
  • Production section in general: Some of these paragraphs could be separated into a "style" section, and I think some things could be made clearer if there was a section noting the art/animation direction the show had. For example, "stylistic similarities" between this and The Powerpuff Girls would be easier to explain (e.g. "they had a stylistic similarities, such as [xyz lines, colors, etc.]."
I rearranged things into a "style and influences" section as best as I could with the sources available to me. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any sources describing how voice acting talent was cast? I know that articles on live-action movies and shows tend to describe the casting, but I am unsure if that is the practice for animation articles.
Those sources may exist, but I haven't found them yet. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development: does "six half-hours" mean "six half-hour episodes" or "six-and-a-half-hours" worth of animation?
Clarified. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conception: This should probably be retitled "characters" or something similar because that's the focus moreso than the origin of the premise.
Retitled to "Character conception" as the article includes a characters section already. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversial episodes: was "Barbequor" removed for any particular reason? Additionally, what does "after broadcast" mean? Was it removed right after or did it take a while?
No official reason has been given that I know of. Rumors suggest it was due to a stereotypical depiction of a homosexual male character, but that is unconfirmed. It was pulled from rotation a short while after its initial airing, but I'm not exactly sure when it happened. I rewrote the sentence to better explain this. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: The two sentences at the end of the section are interesting - they may be worth expanding into a paragraph or section regarding academic study of the show, sort of like how Frozen II has a thing on "analysis". It wouldn't be necessary, though; if it clogs up the article then don't do it.
Clogging the article is how I would describe it. I could expand, but I wouldn't know where to draw the line. Scholarly studies are full of nuance and statistics, and it would be tempting to add too much. I imagine those interested could click through the linked sources to satisfy their curiosity. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotions/Toys: These sections are related (they both involve stuff like licensing and some promotions involve toys in and of themselves) and short enough to contemplate merging into one, unless there is more substantive material that can be found.
I combined these sections. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eithersummer (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dxneo

edit

Hello Paper Luigi, nevermind that I'm a 2000-born, but I grew up watching Dexter. Just came across this on the sidebar and I was like "why not look at it?" I would like to look at this article and give my 2 cent suggestions and opinions. In the meantime, would you please take 2 minutes of your time and check this out. dxneo (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
  • Is there a difference between CatoonNetwork.com (ref18) and Cartoon Network (ref7 & ref8)?? I'm asking because of the linked website(s).
Keep in mind that on FA, consistency is key. I suggest you remove ".com" from ref18. dxneo (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a difference. Cartoon Network as it appears in refs 7 and 8 refers to the cable channel whereas CartoonNetwork.com refers to content taken from the website. These differences exist to avoid confusion. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Ref 25 was published by Fred Seibert, a television producer who helped get the original Dexter's Laboratory short approved for a full series on Cartoon Network. Per WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Seibert not only has a noteworthy body of work in animation acknowledged by reliable sources but also played a part in advancing the notability of the subject of the article. Ref 26, though not written by Seibert, was published on Seibert's website. Lou Romano, the subject of ref 26, only worked on the Dexter's Laboratory series for three episodes as a storyboard artist. Because of this, I have removed this bit from the article. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is preferable to use contemporary names for references as they appeared at the time of their original publishing and as printed in their original form. Per the cite web documentation, "If the name of the periodical changed over time use the name at the time of the source's publication." — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to leave the ".com" suffix on websites that don't have their own WP articles. If or when an article is created for a website, it may use the ".com" suffix as part of its article title. The documentation linked above doesn't specify when the website's top-level domain should be included. As for its reliability, GreatReporter.com is a member of the International Federation of Journalists, the largest global union federation of journalists' trade unions in the world, according to its WP article. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 34 is to Keyframe Magazine, a publication by The Animation Guild, a union of 2,550 animation workers parented by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which itself has a membership of 168,000. Ref 35 is published by a subsidiary of CBS. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genndy Tartakovsky was verified by Reddit as the original poster of content in that AMA. I will cite the MOS guidelines at WP:SELFPUB as justification for this Reddit thread's inclusion. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref48, ref57, ref61, ref66, re97, ref98, ref100, ref101, ref103, ref110, ref113, ref116, ref129, ref138, ref152, ref155, ref156 and ref168, please remove ".com" and use the website domain name only. dxneo (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the question of whether to include the ".com" suffix is not a black-and-white issue, as previously stated. For examples, see ESPN.com, Stamps.com, Wix.com, and Ask.com. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked few references and I think this is a different case. However, I might be wrong about this. Just thought I should raise it since it has been an issues in FACs. dxneo (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref55, 70, 71, 72, 81, 136, 147 and 165 are red flagged, replacements are recommended.
Could you elaborate on what flagged these references? — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social media cannot be referenced unless stated otherwise. Blogs are also discouraged unless you can verify their reliability. Overall, I would say the references need a lot of work. You might say I'm being hard on you, but FAC won't go any easy. FAC works in a timely manner, you won't have a month to address all of this issues, and if there's a lot to address, a quick fail is possible. I believe that we can get this article to FAC is necessary sources are available. Good luck. Feel free to ask me anything. dxneo (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns with including references to social media and self-published sources. That being said, I believe my defense for including these sources is justifiable. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Paper Luigi, by red flagged I mean they are considered highly unreliable as they are highlighted red. dxneo (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dexter%27s_Laboratory/archive4&oldid=1247841089"