Wikipedia:Peer review/Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends/archive1

Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working extensively on it since Saturday and I believe it has been significantly improved. However, I think there's still work to be done and I'd appreciate comments and assistance on how to improve it further and later get it to GA and, eventually, FA quality. Additional contributions to the article are warmly welcome and highly appreciated! Thanks, Katástasi (κατάσταση) 03:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Hi Katastasi; I don't have time for a full review right now, but I've had a mess around with the sources and removed an unwarranted non-free image. I'll be back for a full review later. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at Littlest Pet Shop (2012 TV series), an article I reviewed recently on a similar topic which I consider very strong- it may be a useful model. In addition, here are some comments to look into:

• Imaginary-friends.net doesn't look reliable.
• Buzz (and probably others) is a long way from ideal.
• What's the "BFAHP web site"? If it's reliable, your formatting needs to be clearer.
• Is ScrewAttack reliable?

More another time! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!

• I was hesitant towards Imaginary-friends.net, I'll be removing it soon. Later, if you'd list other sources you think are not reliable, I'd appreciate it.
• Will change "BFAHP" to a clearer "Big Fat Awesome House Party".
• To my extent, ScrewAttack has reliable content and is a video game website such as IGN.
• Sorry about the image, I didn't know it couldn't be used in the article. Thanks for removing it.

Cheers, Katástasi (κατάσταση) 21:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Some more bits:

• I wonder if you could have made it clear earlier in the article that the imaginary friends are weird monster things, not humans- I didn't realise until I got to the character list!

Where, in the lead? I think it might be unnecessary, since we already know they're imaginary friends, and they all look different. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "He is the only character to appear in every episode of the series." Do you have a source for this? It sounds like trivia/cruft.

 Done Unfortunately, the only source I have are the episodes themselves. I'll remove it, as it is unnecessary. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• What does "solidary" mean? Also, is it worth mentioning that "Wilt" is a reference to Wilt Chamberlain?

 Done Changed to compassionate, seems clearer. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm a little worried about original research in the character list. For example, "Wilt has an overly positive and solidary personality, which eventually gets him into a series of misadventures" is a big claim to be referenced directly to an episode.

Will fix this. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "she can demonstrate a perceived intelligence, principle and kindness" Unclear

 Done Clearer now. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "named Adam and Douglas." Douglas Adams, maybe? (I'm starting to like this programme...)

It is a reference to Douglas Adams, indeed. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "In spite of Mr. Herriman's fussiness and fixation with rules and cleanliness, having to take care of everyone and everything in the house." I don't follow.

 Done Remove it, as it is unnecessary detail. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The show spanned seventy-nine episodes and six seasons; it has also aired 18 shorts." Is the TV film included as one of those episodes?

It is, the TV film and the additional hour-long specials were divided in parts as individual episodes. Although I don't know how to make that clearer in the lead without going into too much detail. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was quoting the episode list section rather than the lead; you perhaps have some space to make this kind of thing clear there (just a thought- definitely not something you have to do). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. This information is included in the lead of the episode list, but seems interesting to include it in the section, thanks for the tip. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 14:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The premiere was Cartoon Network's highest rating from key kids demographics, pulling record numbers of watchers for the time." I don't follow

 Done Clearer, remove unnecessary detail. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The series was named the 85th best animated series by IGN" Of all time?

 Done Yes. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Venable and Remington teamed up for the show's lone Annie nominee in 2007, for their original music in a TV series for "The Bloo Superdude and the Magic Potato of Power"." Too informal/tabloid-y

 Done Fixed. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• With the Annie Awards, you sometimes list the nominations and sometimes don't. I'd say that you should either list all nominations or just the winners.

Will rework this section. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your 2009 Annie Awards info seems to be unreferenced

Not all of it is unreferenced, but I will fix the part that isn't. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is "background key design"?

 Done Clearer. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• "In November 2007, the game officially ended. Now, the URL redirects to the Cartoon Network home page." Unreferenced- is it really needed?

 Done No it's not, I've removed it. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not at all a bad article; I'm always happy to see a decent article on what could so easily be a badly-written cruft-fest. Be aware of OR- as well as the kind of thing I was pointing at in the character section (which is probably forgivable- we can describe characters as long as we keep it factual, though perhaps we should be wary of cruft sneaking in) there are a few other bits around; for example, claiming that "The game received mixed reviews" on the basis of a single cited reference seems too big a jump. If you were looking at FAC, I'd probably moan a bit about some of the cited the sources, but for GA purposes, I suspect they're acceptable. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm aiming for a GAN right now. I'll rework the characters and awards section. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not think you will have any problems getting this through GAC. @23W: Perhaps you may be interested in taking a look at this article? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, I've been fixing some things and working on the Characters and Awards section now, perhaps you'd like to take a look? Cheers, κατάσταση 03:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks. I suspect that this is ready for GAC; FAC may be a little more difficult. Perhaps your GA reviewer or another peer reviewer would be able to offer further suggestions. Right now, I wonder about OR (there are unsourced passages; they look benign to me, but others may not share this view) and about comprehensiveness. Are there more sources out there worth exploring? I'm seeing hits on Google Scholar which may be worth exploring, and a whopping 792 hits on Nexis. (I don't know whether you have easy access to this kind of thing. If not, I could help.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean in the Characters section? If there are few issues, then it might be interesting to nominate it for GA. I don't have much experience with Nexis, I'd appreciate some help in that respect. I believe most of the fancruft has been removed and I've simplified most of the character description. κατάσταση 22:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)