The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot ( talk) 24 February 2022 [1].
This article is about a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode. Though it may not be thought to discuss Stalinism or Marxism (cough, " The Cutie Map", cough), critics still think it's awesome and scholars think it discusses feminism. This article was brought to GA-status back in 2012 and I have since expanded its reception and production sections. I nominated it for FA status back in October of last year, but that was archived after over two weeks of absolutely no comments. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis ( talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Placeholder; I'll take a look in the next day or two. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
and I have barely any idea what this means. I've googled "substitution of a mechanical double" but there's nothing that I can find that provides more context...There are many notable narrative and thematic continuities between My Little Pony 'n Friends and MLPFIM, and episodes of the recent series parallel the female-centered nature of the original. ... "A Canterlot Wedding: Part 2" culminates in a battle with a changeling army assuming the uncanny appearance of the six main characters, representing the "substitution of a mechanical double," a theme humorously revisited in "Too Many Pinkie Pies."
That's it from me; interesting episode. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Support on all criteria except 1c, where I'm neutral due to the DeviantArt citation. I'll wait to hear other reviewers' opinions.
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you can leave comments on other FACs to possibly attract reviewers. Or perhaps leave a message on some users' talk who are familiar with this show (or at least television work in general). Anyway, let's do the honors:
That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG ( talk) 14:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. FrB.TG ( talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I see above that Guerillero had concerns about the sources, and that you've responded by trimming some primary sources. The plot, which of course is taken from the primary source, is about a third of the article, so I immediately wonder if there's enough here for an article, or if perhaps this material should be included in the season article.
I'll go through the sources and list them here with any concerns. I'm using this version, just to be be clear what footnote numbering I'm using.
1. Primary source, just used to identify the character by name. Doesn't seem like there's any doubt about it; I think this is OK.
2. Same as above, for the same reason; OK.
3. Academic article by Fletcher. Looks fine; would you be able to email me a copy of this?
4. A post on DeviantArt. This is pretty hard to validate. First you have to be able to show that this poster is Lauren Faust, then it has to be clear that this is the episode she's talking about, and if that's resolved this is no better than a blog post. I would cut this.
5. An interview with Entertainment Weekly. Reliable; he only references it as "the aria" in season two. You presumably know he has to be referring to this, but I don't; can you cite something that demonstrates this?
6. Entertainment Weekly; this is reliable.
7 & 8. Begin's book on the art of the show. Used to source descriptions of the development of the character art; I think it's a reliable source for that.
9. Press release. Primary source; this is used twice. The first time is to cover the publicity campaign; I think the press release is only a marginal source for that. If another media outlet found the campaign worth mentioning, e.g. as a sign of the popularity of the show, then OK -- and in fact the second time you use this source you do have another source, and I think it's OK for that. I think you should consider cutting the first use of this.
10. Entertainment Weekly coverage of the wedding announcement in the NYT. Reliable, and no problem at first use. The second use is to source "The New York Daily News' David Hinckley and Entertainment Weekly's Hillary Busis found the episodes ambitious, complex, captivating, and enjoyable, saying they would appeal to all audiences." Busis says the show is "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining" and Hinckley says "charming and surprisingly complex". I think "appeal to all audiences" is a bit of a stretch, though both sources imply the appeal goes beyond the original target audience. I think you should pull this back a little; I wouldn't name Busis or Hinckley inline, unless they're well-known journalists. How about "Review in the New York Daily News and Entertainment Weekly described the show as "charming and surprisingly complex", and "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining", which avoids paraphrasing issues and can't be accused of synthesis.
11. Yahoo News. Reliable. OK for the bridle shower coverage, though I'd remove material from those two sentences that can only be sourced to the press release.
12. Daily News. Not a great source but this is a review so we're just sourcing the reviewer's opinion, and it's OK for that. OK for the uses you make of it, but see 14 below.
13. Commonsensemedia. Used for a review, which is no problem, but see 14 below.
14. The A.V. Club. Suggest linking also to his author page on avclub.com to explain the name change from Emily St. James, since you link to a WP article under his current name. I'm not expert on this site but I know it's treated as reliable by WP:ALBUMS, and looking through their old discussions it seems to get referenced by other reliable sources, which is a good sign. It's only used here as a source for a review, so I think this is OK. However, you use three reviews (12-14 in this list) to support the first three sentences of the "Themes" section. I think you could regard the A.V Club piece as sufficiently in-depth for this purpose, but the other two pieces are a bit flimsy to be used in this way. I would suggest dropping this paragraph of "Themes"; you might be able to move some material to the "Responses" section, though you already have some of the material there as well.
15. Fletcher again; as above, would like to see the article if possible, but no doubt it's a reliable source.
16. Valiente & Rasmussen. Reliable source; would like a copy if possible.
17. Entertainment Weekly. Just used to source the statement that multiple outlets mentioned the William & Kate connection. No problem.
18. Press release. I would change the statements you use this for to say "claimed", since it's publicity material.
19. A.V. Club. This is used to source "As of November 2013, it has drawn the most viewers of any program on The Hub"; the source says "The two-part “Canterlot Wedding” drew the most viewers of any Hub program". I don't think the source is inherently unreliable, but this is vague -- the most that week? The most ever to that date? Given that you have (claimed) numbers from the press release just before this, I think I would cut this.
20. Entertainment Weekly, quoting a fansite founder about fandom's opinion; OK for how it's used.
21. & 22. SF Weekly; used for review coverage. OK.
23 & 24. Wired and the DVD distributor; the first is reliable and the second I think is OK given that all it sources is what's in the boxed set.
That's it for the sources. I'll add more comments once you've responded. I would also say that I think the plot should be trimmed -- it's over 600 words, and the rest of the body of the article is only about 1000 words, and that's before any cuts you might make as a result of my comments above. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. I think this is now pretty close to FA quality. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Support. The "Themes" section could probably be smoothed out a little more, but I think we're over the line. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Source for "It has also been praised by multiple reviewers and will show the reader how the fight was "colourful and fun" as well as Pinkie Pie's usage of Twilight as a gun so they are not left questioning what it was. "? Also File:William and Kate wedding.jpg is a pretty low quality image. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Recusing to review.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot ( talk) 24 February 2022 [1].
This article is about a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode. Though it may not be thought to discuss Stalinism or Marxism (cough, " The Cutie Map", cough), critics still think it's awesome and scholars think it discusses feminism. This article was brought to GA-status back in 2012 and I have since expanded its reception and production sections. I nominated it for FA status back in October of last year, but that was archived after over two weeks of absolutely no comments. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis ( talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Placeholder; I'll take a look in the next day or two. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
and I have barely any idea what this means. I've googled "substitution of a mechanical double" but there's nothing that I can find that provides more context...There are many notable narrative and thematic continuities between My Little Pony 'n Friends and MLPFIM, and episodes of the recent series parallel the female-centered nature of the original. ... "A Canterlot Wedding: Part 2" culminates in a battle with a changeling army assuming the uncanny appearance of the six main characters, representing the "substitution of a mechanical double," a theme humorously revisited in "Too Many Pinkie Pies."
That's it from me; interesting episode. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Support on all criteria except 1c, where I'm neutral due to the DeviantArt citation. I'll wait to hear other reviewers' opinions.
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you can leave comments on other FACs to possibly attract reviewers. Or perhaps leave a message on some users' talk who are familiar with this show (or at least television work in general). Anyway, let's do the honors:
That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG ( talk) 14:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. FrB.TG ( talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I see above that Guerillero had concerns about the sources, and that you've responded by trimming some primary sources. The plot, which of course is taken from the primary source, is about a third of the article, so I immediately wonder if there's enough here for an article, or if perhaps this material should be included in the season article.
I'll go through the sources and list them here with any concerns. I'm using this version, just to be be clear what footnote numbering I'm using.
1. Primary source, just used to identify the character by name. Doesn't seem like there's any doubt about it; I think this is OK.
2. Same as above, for the same reason; OK.
3. Academic article by Fletcher. Looks fine; would you be able to email me a copy of this?
4. A post on DeviantArt. This is pretty hard to validate. First you have to be able to show that this poster is Lauren Faust, then it has to be clear that this is the episode she's talking about, and if that's resolved this is no better than a blog post. I would cut this.
5. An interview with Entertainment Weekly. Reliable; he only references it as "the aria" in season two. You presumably know he has to be referring to this, but I don't; can you cite something that demonstrates this?
6. Entertainment Weekly; this is reliable.
7 & 8. Begin's book on the art of the show. Used to source descriptions of the development of the character art; I think it's a reliable source for that.
9. Press release. Primary source; this is used twice. The first time is to cover the publicity campaign; I think the press release is only a marginal source for that. If another media outlet found the campaign worth mentioning, e.g. as a sign of the popularity of the show, then OK -- and in fact the second time you use this source you do have another source, and I think it's OK for that. I think you should consider cutting the first use of this.
10. Entertainment Weekly coverage of the wedding announcement in the NYT. Reliable, and no problem at first use. The second use is to source "The New York Daily News' David Hinckley and Entertainment Weekly's Hillary Busis found the episodes ambitious, complex, captivating, and enjoyable, saying they would appeal to all audiences." Busis says the show is "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining" and Hinckley says "charming and surprisingly complex". I think "appeal to all audiences" is a bit of a stretch, though both sources imply the appeal goes beyond the original target audience. I think you should pull this back a little; I wouldn't name Busis or Hinckley inline, unless they're well-known journalists. How about "Review in the New York Daily News and Entertainment Weekly described the show as "charming and surprisingly complex", and "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining", which avoids paraphrasing issues and can't be accused of synthesis.
11. Yahoo News. Reliable. OK for the bridle shower coverage, though I'd remove material from those two sentences that can only be sourced to the press release.
12. Daily News. Not a great source but this is a review so we're just sourcing the reviewer's opinion, and it's OK for that. OK for the uses you make of it, but see 14 below.
13. Commonsensemedia. Used for a review, which is no problem, but see 14 below.
14. The A.V. Club. Suggest linking also to his author page on avclub.com to explain the name change from Emily St. James, since you link to a WP article under his current name. I'm not expert on this site but I know it's treated as reliable by WP:ALBUMS, and looking through their old discussions it seems to get referenced by other reliable sources, which is a good sign. It's only used here as a source for a review, so I think this is OK. However, you use three reviews (12-14 in this list) to support the first three sentences of the "Themes" section. I think you could regard the A.V Club piece as sufficiently in-depth for this purpose, but the other two pieces are a bit flimsy to be used in this way. I would suggest dropping this paragraph of "Themes"; you might be able to move some material to the "Responses" section, though you already have some of the material there as well.
15. Fletcher again; as above, would like to see the article if possible, but no doubt it's a reliable source.
16. Valiente & Rasmussen. Reliable source; would like a copy if possible.
17. Entertainment Weekly. Just used to source the statement that multiple outlets mentioned the William & Kate connection. No problem.
18. Press release. I would change the statements you use this for to say "claimed", since it's publicity material.
19. A.V. Club. This is used to source "As of November 2013, it has drawn the most viewers of any program on The Hub"; the source says "The two-part “Canterlot Wedding” drew the most viewers of any Hub program". I don't think the source is inherently unreliable, but this is vague -- the most that week? The most ever to that date? Given that you have (claimed) numbers from the press release just before this, I think I would cut this.
20. Entertainment Weekly, quoting a fansite founder about fandom's opinion; OK for how it's used.
21. & 22. SF Weekly; used for review coverage. OK.
23 & 24. Wired and the DVD distributor; the first is reliable and the second I think is OK given that all it sources is what's in the boxed set.
That's it for the sources. I'll add more comments once you've responded. I would also say that I think the plot should be trimmed -- it's over 600 words, and the rest of the body of the article is only about 1000 words, and that's before any cuts you might make as a result of my comments above. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. I think this is now pretty close to FA quality. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Support. The "Themes" section could probably be smoothed out a little more, but I think we're over the line. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Source for "It has also been praised by multiple reviewers and will show the reader how the fight was "colourful and fun" as well as Pinkie Pie's usage of Twilight as a gun so they are not left questioning what it was. "? Also File:William and Kate wedding.jpg is a pretty low quality image. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Recusing to review.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)