This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Could you talk me through why Digitally Obsessed and The Numbers are reliable?
Digitally Obsessed is a comprehensive DVD review site which has been cited in other episode article GA's, namely those of The Simpsons such as "
The Otto Show", "
Homer Defined", and "
Bart the Murderer". The Numbers is mainly a box office analyzer but apparently also does (well-written and cohesive) reviews. I hope that's enough of a reasoning, though I'm a tad unsure. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, who runs them? Who writes them? Are they professionals? Are they spin-off websites from other reliable publications? They look like sources I'd like to trust, but I'm not sure if they're technically reliable sources Wikipedia-wise.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Digitally Obsessed:
This states that their reviewers must meet a series of requirements, including writing prowess, technical requirements, age, and knowledge of their field. Credible news sources citing/reporting on/analyzing it include
Ludington Daily News newspaper, 2002,
the Herald Journal, 2007 (which cites an interview it did; it's the paragraph opening with the quote "I was the best television director[...]" in the "TV sports pioneer dies at 75" article), among
others.
The Numbers is similar to DO's requirements, but has been established longer and has been noted for its availability to industry professionals and investors. More
here, which I think sums it up better. Cited by a bunch of newspapers
here, and called among the "leading box office tracking websites" by
National Ledger. (Again, though, it's mainly a box office website, but apparently also does reviews for DVD's—the relation of the two baffles me, but alas :P) The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Ok, I can rock with that.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I can't help feel you drift off-topic a little in the production section... In such a short article, it's very noticable.\
Er, how so? The section covers a) the brief crew, and an interesting note about its position as the 52nd episode, then b) the reason behind it being the last episode, c) Small writing it and certain things he kept in mind/analyzed/etc., and finally c) brief bit about the animation in the episode. I don't see any off-topic material there... The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The second paragraph seems to be about the series generally rather than the episode. I'm sorry I can't give more specific advice- can you see what I'm saying?
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, yeah, but this is the series finale, so information on why it was canceled is basically essential. Or do you disagree...? The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps open the paragraph by clarifying the relevance... "[writer] knew before writing the episode that it would be the last" or something.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Could you talk me through why you've chosen that image in particular? It just looks a bit like (what I gather the to be) the three main characters stood together- not the most representative image of this episode in particular.
I mainly picked it because it's both high-quality and demonstrates the characters at a pivotal moment for the show (in which they decide their movies are made specifically for them). I could replace it with a shot of the camera breaking in the final scene, which is actually discussed more in the article. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's what I thought- I get the impression from the article that that is the iconic moment. If you feel the current screenshot is better, I am happy to trust your judgement.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It's good, but I can't help feeling there's something a little lacking.
"Brendon, Melissa, and Jason" is there a character list or something we can link to?
The lead- you could link them in the caption if you like, but that may well be overkill.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
"he had for" that would be "he had had for", but that whole paragraph is a little odd- I think I see what you're trying to get across, but could you rephrase it?
Fixed. Also, what seems a tad odd about it? And by "rephrase", are you referring to "he had had for" or the entire paragraph? The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The entire paragraph- it doesn't read that well. Just try and phrase it differently?
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I just think it would look better in one or two paragraphs.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I just fear it would be clumped, if you get what I'm saying. Especially with the rewritten version of the second paragraph that stands now. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Focus Grill. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Could you talk me through why Digitally Obsessed and The Numbers are reliable?
Digitally Obsessed is a comprehensive DVD review site which has been cited in other episode article GA's, namely those of The Simpsons such as "
The Otto Show", "
Homer Defined", and "
Bart the Murderer". The Numbers is mainly a box office analyzer but apparently also does (well-written and cohesive) reviews. I hope that's enough of a reasoning, though I'm a tad unsure. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, who runs them? Who writes them? Are they professionals? Are they spin-off websites from other reliable publications? They look like sources I'd like to trust, but I'm not sure if they're technically reliable sources Wikipedia-wise.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Digitally Obsessed:
This states that their reviewers must meet a series of requirements, including writing prowess, technical requirements, age, and knowledge of their field. Credible news sources citing/reporting on/analyzing it include
Ludington Daily News newspaper, 2002,
the Herald Journal, 2007 (which cites an interview it did; it's the paragraph opening with the quote "I was the best television director[...]" in the "TV sports pioneer dies at 75" article), among
others.
The Numbers is similar to DO's requirements, but has been established longer and has been noted for its availability to industry professionals and investors. More
here, which I think sums it up better. Cited by a bunch of newspapers
here, and called among the "leading box office tracking websites" by
National Ledger. (Again, though, it's mainly a box office website, but apparently also does reviews for DVD's—the relation of the two baffles me, but alas :P) The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Ok, I can rock with that.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I can't help feel you drift off-topic a little in the production section... In such a short article, it's very noticable.\
Er, how so? The section covers a) the brief crew, and an interesting note about its position as the 52nd episode, then b) the reason behind it being the last episode, c) Small writing it and certain things he kept in mind/analyzed/etc., and finally c) brief bit about the animation in the episode. I don't see any off-topic material there... The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The second paragraph seems to be about the series generally rather than the episode. I'm sorry I can't give more specific advice- can you see what I'm saying?
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, yeah, but this is the series finale, so information on why it was canceled is basically essential. Or do you disagree...? The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps open the paragraph by clarifying the relevance... "[writer] knew before writing the episode that it would be the last" or something.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Could you talk me through why you've chosen that image in particular? It just looks a bit like (what I gather the to be) the three main characters stood together- not the most representative image of this episode in particular.
I mainly picked it because it's both high-quality and demonstrates the characters at a pivotal moment for the show (in which they decide their movies are made specifically for them). I could replace it with a shot of the camera breaking in the final scene, which is actually discussed more in the article. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's what I thought- I get the impression from the article that that is the iconic moment. If you feel the current screenshot is better, I am happy to trust your judgement.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It's good, but I can't help feeling there's something a little lacking.
"Brendon, Melissa, and Jason" is there a character list or something we can link to?
The lead- you could link them in the caption if you like, but that may well be overkill.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
"he had for" that would be "he had had for", but that whole paragraph is a little odd- I think I see what you're trying to get across, but could you rephrase it?
Fixed. Also, what seems a tad odd about it? And by "rephrase", are you referring to "he had had for" or the entire paragraph? The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The entire paragraph- it doesn't read that well. Just try and phrase it differently?
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I just think it would look better in one or two paragraphs.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I just fear it would be clumped, if you get what I'm saying. Especially with the rewritten version of the second paragraph that stands now. The FlashI amJack'scompletelack of surprise 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Focus Grill. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.