Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 19:31, 14 July 2009 [1].

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest[edit]

Nominator(s): ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I guess the last nomination was closed on July 6 because of apparent non-activity. Restarting and re-posting the last aspects to be discussed:

  • 4 - Writer's bible. If the website's the only issue, it could be removed from the citation, with the publisher being Hanna-Barbera. If the authenticity in question, Lance Falk can vouch, and I even sent the link to Peter Lawrence, who hadn't kept the original draft after leaving Turner. It was "leaked" in the form of photocopies on Ebay, and sometimes still pops up as an auction. A lot of quotes and the creative sections hinge on it, so I'll take pains to prove its authenticity if needed.
  • Winnie Lim's FAQ - I've removed it from the article, but I've left the statement it affirmed; "Time Warner's acquisition of Turner negated the separate series idea, leading to the episodes' release as the second season of Real Adventures." This was verified by Larry Houston in that FAQ and Lance Falk in his own writings, and the revised writer's bible is entitled The New Jonny Quest, so I'm hoping we can get away without a fact tag for this statement.
  • 38 - Francois Lord's comments on QuestWorld, mostly covering the process at Buzz F/X. These offer an interesting look into the history of the project and why QuestWorld was panned (and also why Buzz F/X went into bankruptcy), but if they absolutely had to go, the article could still stand without his notes. He is able to be reached through his personal website and Gmail in case it's relevant. Sadly, it probably would fail the self-publishing self test since he's making claims about third parties (Buzz F/X).
  • 71 - Lance Falk's Semi-FAQ. I was able to cut it down to two uses: "Falk defended his portrayal as giving her realistic, human fears, such as claustrophobia." "Falk felt that virtual reality paradoxically undermined the show's "strong connection to reality", and suggested that after so many dangerous incidents Dr. Quest would have simply turned the system off." This is self-published material on the self, and so it may pass the five stipulations at WP:V.
  • 128 - Peter Lawrence e-mail defending Race Bannon's accent. Based on WP:V, this may pass the five self-published stipulations, assuming #2 doesn't cover fictional characters and that the authenticity is not in doubt. If you whois PL's old site http://gealepeterlawrence.com/ at Godaddy, you can find his e-mail, which is how I did it when I originally contacted him about the show in 2007. I can also provide an image of the e-mail and its header information; they're still in my e-mail's inbox. This cite also now doubles as helping to prove that there was fan criticism over the accents; that assertion's cite was lost with Lance Falk's semi-FAQ. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note, but it's usually expected that nominators will take a couple weeks to sort the issues out before resubmitting to FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues were being sorted out in real-time; I was away from the site for five or six days attending to real life matters. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:FACR #3. I added alt text for the lead image to help get started, but the remaining images still need it. Could you please add it? Please see WP:ALT for more. Eubulides (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for the two photographs in the marketing section which will probably be replaced due to copyright paranoia. I'll be sure to give the replacement alt text when it's up. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Here are random issues at the top; the whole text needs work.

  • Why is "television series" linked? Is that a concept English-speakers struggle with? Same for "animated" (which is also linked in the infobox a few cm away); then you leave the two links in the middle, more exposed (which is desirable). The link "3D"—readers will ignore it because they know the term; yet it goes somewhere more specific. Any way of piping it that will make it more functional? "3D cyberspace domain"? Why are "English" and "USA" linked in the infobox?
  • Why the "defunct" website link?
  • Why is "Turner Entertainment" linked in the second instead of the first sentence of the first section? Why is it linked so soon after the link to it in the lead?
  • "Led by director Dick Sebast, the first Real Adventures development team was briefly dismissed in favor of writer Peter Lawrence"—briefly ... it was a text message, was it?
  • Tense and mood issues: "She previously appeared in the 1986 The New Adventures of Jonny Quest episodes as a general's daughter, and would debut in the telefilms as Race's daughter by Jezebel Jade." Perhaps "had appeared"; the conditional-as-future "would" is unsatisfactory here, and does this refer to some time between 1986 and 1993. I'm confused.
  • "also researched"—you haven't previously mentioned their research, so why "also"?
  • does one "inspire" nightmares? Tony (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to read further unless the writing is significantly improved. Tony (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC) PS I agree with dabomb87: this needs time out for improvement before resubmission. This is not an article-improvement service. Tony (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you have too much faith in the peer review system, which has never gotten attention to any of my articles. I can't even find relevant image policy for the public domain images I tried to make, which have now been flagged, and it seems people are even flagging toy images as copyvio which will defeat an image of an action figure that I had in backup. I must ask to be excused for not realizing that a 4-5 day absence is strictly punished these days in WP:FAC. Could you please direct it some place it'll receive attention from other editors at? I'm trying to get it passed with enough time for placement on TFA for August 26th, its 13th anniversary, and I'll need all the points I can get if I'm to overcome the pop-culture article hatred going on over at the request page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have to say, amazing work. Very rare to find TV series article of this caliber. I've been told fan sites are not considered against WP:V, but in the previous nomination you gave several reasonable reasons why it's valid, so I'll let that slide. There's a lot of fairuse images - I can't say I understand why the Marketing ones are considered it, but still, removals would be best, not several, as they all seem important, but a few to lower the fair use count. Anyways, great work. The Flash {talk} 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was told at the village pump that even toys are derivative works, so I'm going to Plan C and asking one of the writers for a self-pic that he can release to the public domain. Until then, the other ones have been removed. I really wouldn't care about another image in the article, but I'd really like one for TFA, if only as a protest against the WP:JIMBOing of copyrighted images on the main page (which sort of ceremonially punishes editors of copyrighted-topic articles). ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that's odd. Is it possible to find one on Flickr? It might me easier. The Flash {talk} 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the prose is not FA quality and this is not helped by the blatant use of jargon throughout the article. Here are some examples of poor writing.

  • which brought him into conflict with ethically-differing villains - what on earth does "ethically-differing" mean?
  • The villains' ethics differed from Dr. Quest's.
In what way? Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each team produced twenty-six episodes for fifty-two overall - this doesn't make sense.
  • Two teams produced 26 episodes, making 52 for the entire series. Not that hard.
How about "half of the"? Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • while later writers invoked more liberal science fiction and paranormal plots - "invoked"?
  • Yes, they relied and called upon more liberal plot ideas and conventions for their stories.
Why not say "insisted on"? Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and no other animated series featured realistic youth going on life-like adventures at the time. - "youth" is ugly.
  • This is nitpicking. Youth sounds much more professional than "kids".
Who suggested "kids"? Not me. How about "young people realising life–like adventures"? Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the push is jargon.
  • addressing criticisms of the classic series - I think "in light of" would be better.
  • The criticisms occurred in the 60s, for the 60s series. TRAJQ was addressing those criticisms, which stuck with the franchise, so I feel this is correct.
I still think " in light of" is better. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turner pushed is more jargon, as is Japanese and Korean animators drew traditional cel sequences and colored. - "colored what?
  • A team in Paris specialized in computer expertise - is meaningless tautology.
  • Quoting the source.
The source is poorly written. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teaser is jargon.
  • I'd wager that most people are familiar with the term "teaser" thanks to teasers and trailers for upcoming movies. Anyone who's gone to download a teaser has no doubt encountered the term.
The word is not fully accepted or understood yet in this context. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuestWorld was designed as an extension of contemporary technology ??
  • Take current technology, and imagine futuristic applications and developments tied to it. Like a 4 cylinder engine going to a 14 cylinder engine.
Given that you have to explain this expression here, illustrates my point. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amateur employees struggled with lighting and syncing jerky motion capture -more jargon, and ugly too.
  • Really, motion capture is jargon? They're capturing the motion of the people moving.
"syncing" = "synchronising" ? Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turner leveraged the series in forty countries and fourteen languages to crack international markets. - "to crack" is jargon.
  • Perhaps, but I thought it added variety to the article. I don't want to bore people to death.
It does not add variety—it is lazy prose. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jane Rosenthal optioned the rights for the live action film - "optioned" is jargon.
  • Again, I'm not in the animation business, but through news-reading and life experiences, I've come to know what it means.
I don't. Graham Colm Talk

In my view, the whole article needs a thorough copy-edit, which I do not think can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm Talk 19:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, and my same writing style has been passed in other featured articles. I think you're underestimating the reading level of this encyclopedia audience. I also appreciate your vote of confidence. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey please, your other FAs are not relevant here; this article is the FAC, and past form does not count. On the contrary, I do not underestimate our readership, which expects a higher standard of writing than this in our FAs. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chrono Trigger was TFA recently, and I keep all my articles up to current standard. I'm just a little amused that you took the time to find criticisms in every part of the article, but are quick to dismissively write off the nomination instead of help. I don't criticize Tony for this since he's a busy guy and only takes a section of the article as representative of the whole, but if you're willing to critique the entire thing, you might as well fix it and help out. I've been totally frustrated in getting help copyediting this one. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not shoot the messenger. I am just as busy as Tony in real life, very busy in fact. And, FAC reviewers are not expected or obliged to fix articles. Sorry. Graham Colm Talk 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, reading your comments Graham, a lot of them are nit-picking and don't make sense; things like optioning and syncing aren't difficult words to understand. And neither is teaser, especially if it were to be linked. There have to be limits on how dumbed down FA prose has to be, right? Skinny87 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting it should be dumbed down, I would like it to be "well-written: its prose engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". I can live with some of the jargon, but I had to open another tab find out what "retcon" means. Let's see what other have to say. Graham Colm Talk 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, it really is a delicate balance, isn't it? Well, all right. If this doesn't make FA, I'm going to take it on a world tour peer review circuit until I can finally get some help. By the way, Graham or any others, how many fair use images do you think this article should use, given it's 88kb? User:Fasach Nua is on a crusade with his overuse tag. It's down to the title card + 3 images, and I'd rather not remove any others given how they illustrate the characters and the Questworld concept, which is an integral part of the show's history and critical reception. I'm not even sure FN is a legitimate user, since they keep their user and talk page wiped. It'd just get into a revert war if I tried to remove the tag right now, so can anyone comment? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(un) I don't know anything about US fair use law sorry. But going back to my comments above, I have looked into the articles history and I found this comment from Tony at this article's first FAC nearly two years ago: There's a tendency to use slightly too informal language for an encyclopedic register, when you're translating from the sources. Here's an example: "Hanna-Barbera axed Lawrence and Takashi, hiring John Eng and Cos Anzilotti to finish the first twenty-six episodes.[18][2][17] Turner pushed for ...". "Axed" and "pushed for".[2] This exact sentence is still in the article. At the restart of the nomination he makes this point: Each team produced twenty-six episodes for fifty-two overall" plus other hard-to-read numbers—MOS says normally digits for numbers over nine. Any reason to spell these out?[3]. He has also pointed out somewhere that there shouldn't be a hyphen in "ethically-differing". This gives me the impression that despite pleas for a peer-review, good advice has been ignored. Graham Colm Talk 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the last FAC archive, but didn't go back in the history for the one predating it, since I thought those had been covered by the participating reviewers in my absence (as when SandyGeorgia fixed the references, etc.). Also, I don't think Wikipedia is so Amerocentric as to limit discussions of fair use images to the arena of US law. Can anyone else comment? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting to one side the problem with the images for a moment, I would have checked that all previous criticisms had been addressed. They were not, and this convinces me that this FAC is poorly prepared. I do not like opposing FA candidates, and I am pleased to see articles that I have reviewed promoted. I am thinking right now that you do not like me for having opposed the promotion of this article—but this is nothing personal. I admire your commitment to WP, but I wish more of an attempt to reach a consensus could be made. I notice that not many edits have been made to the article in response to comments. I admire editors who stand their ground when they know that they are right, but I admire more those editors who concede that consensus is paramount. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; I haven't edited in light of your comments and Tony's yet because I'm waiting to see if any other copyeditors will take up the reins. I removed 3 images, several references, and a few comments in response to other concerns in archive2 (which was last week; the closure / reboot was a mishap). If you want the truth, I didn't check the history of archive1 because I was personally embarrassed at getting mad at SandyGeorgia, and didn't want to read through that again. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double post: okay, it looks like User:Fasach Nua has been blocked in the past for violating the 3R rule and other questionable actions. I'm going to restore the digital animation painting image, bringing the fair use image count back to five. If no copyeditors at the guild stop by before the FAC terminates, then I'll just try to have it peer reviewed and wait until 2-3 other editors look at it, then resubmit. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked earlier this evening at User:Fasach Nua's chequered past—blanking is futile. Please, do not be embarrassed with regard to past experiences, look at the mess I made of this: [4]. I am tempted to offer help with the CE required, but I just don't have the time. I am trying to think who can help—perhaps User:Mailer diablo might? Graham Colm Talk 22:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose - This is not plausible as a featured article, massive copyright abuse, failure to meeet WP:NFCC hence fails FAC #4 Fasach Nua (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, fails criteria 3 and 4 due to the images. Also, per GrahamColm, the quality of writing needs work. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (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/The_Real_Adventures_of_Jonny_Quest/archive3&oldid=1144460696"