Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adventure Time/archive2


 * 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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017.

Adventure Time

 * Nominator(s): Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Adventure Time, an American animated television series created by Pendleton Ward that follows the adventures of Finn (a human boy) and Jake (a magical, shape-shifting dog and Finn's adoptive brother) in a post-apocalyptic world of Ooo. The show has been quite the pop culture phenomenon these last few years, and has won numerous awards, including a Peabody and several Emmys. When I first started working on the article in 2012, it looked like this. Since then, I have greatly expanded it, both in terms of size as well as coverage. I have used the highest-quality sources (all of which are archived, if applicable), and I have had it copy-edited a handful of times, both by myself as well as others. The content is solid, the prose reads well, and it is accurate. While it is currently a good article, I believe it is ready for the next step. Also, if anyone wishes to do source spot-checks, I have access to many of the books, and I'd be willing to send out scans to expedite the process.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information.  MCMLXXXIX  19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I have added alt text to all the images.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! --  MCMLXXXIX   19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
 * Replace the (rare) curly quotes with straight quotes.


 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A joy to read ... now I want to watch the show. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy-edit. I have changed all the curly quotes to straight quotes.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   00:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not certain about the last one-sentence paragraph of the lead. Would it be possible to integrate that information into the above paragraphs instead? It could fit in the second paragraph.
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not certain about the value of the ukulele image as it does not add that much to the reader's understanding of the material. It seems to be there more for padding/break up a large amount of text.
 * I'll go ahead and remove it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really like the content of the "Critical reviews" section, but I would suggest trying to make this more accessible to an unfamiliar reader. I would suggest revising this section around topic as this can come across as a list of reviewer's thoughts. I would recommend looking at the following resource for help on this matter: here
 * Are there any negative reviews of the series? This is more of a clarification question. Just want to make sure to make this as comprehensive as possible.
 * I'm sure there are, but honestly, I can't really find any from major sources; most places like the show a lot. The one negative thing I did come across was from Perlmutter. I bet there is some controversy about the show's content (e.g. cartoon violence, mild language, fart jokes, etc.) so I'll look into that.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I just want to make sure that the section satisfies the "comprehensive" aspect of the FA criteria. If you cannot find anything from a reliable source, then it is fine. I just wanted to check and clarify about this in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to work on the rest tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to ping me, but I'll try not to!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Take as much time as you need. You have done a lot of wonderful work with this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How does this change look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: the changes look great and the article is very strong. If possible, could you also help me with my FAC as well? Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I did a major c/e of this article for the GOCE in late February. It has had dozens of edits since, most by the article's main author. I had a quick read through it today and it appears to continue to meet the WP|MOS standards. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Adventure Time - Title card.png: Non-free image used to identify the work in the infobox, seems OK to me. One superfluous non-free rationale.
 * I removed the superfluous non-free rationale box. Thanks for that heads-up.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Pendleton Ward at the Tomorrow Show.jpg: Free image on Commons. Somewhat low quality, but pertinent.
 * File:Patrick McHale in 2014 at New York Comic Con - Photo By Peter Dzubay.jpg: Free image on Commons. Same as above.
 * File:The crew of Adventure Time at the 74th Annual Peabody Awards.jpg: Ditto, but good quality.
 * File:Adventure time storyboard.jpg: Non-free image, its NFCC#8 rationale is sort of weak and I think it needs a higher resolution.
 * I tried to beef it up a bit.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:JeremyShadaCrop.jpg and File:John DiMaggio by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg: Seem fine and pertinent to me.
 * File:2014 Dragon Con Cosplay - Adventure Time group (15120749991).jpg: Copyright status is borderline but passable. Otherwise pertinent.
 * File:Ryannorth.jpg: Seems OK.
 * I forgot to ping you. I fixed the issues you pointed out and also tried to improve the NFCC#8 rationale on another image.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the text in the image is not readable and while often that is not an issue, the NFCC rationale seems to say that it is important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which 'text in the image' are you referring to? -- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa, I missed that in my first go-through. I re-sized it so that it is now 800 × 471. How does it look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. However, I would also like to see more commentary on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c as I'm not sure we have quite covered how far the article meets these yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a source review at WT:FAC. I'll see if I can get some others to leave comments/suggestions.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How does everything look now? Thanks!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made a number of copyedits myself (mostly grammar, spelling and MOS things). I haven't checked any sources apart from the two I mentioned above, but the fact that in both of these cases there was information not supported by the references gives me pause. I don't have the time or motivation to check 238 references so I'm not sure what the solution is here unless somebody volunteers to do a full source review. 97198 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The studio approached Cartoon Network, which said it would be willing to produce a series if Ward could prove the short could be expanded into a full series while maintaining elements of the pilot. – this is cited to ref #19, which doesn't seem to support this claim.
 * Good catch! An instance of a mixed-up source. I have fixed it, and the source attached to this claim is now appropriate. I think this might've gotten mixed up during a copy-edit or renovation phase.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Related to the above point, it would be useful to make it clear that the original short film is also considered the pilot episode – I was confused when I came across the first mention of the pilot before realising it referred to the short.
 * This is kind of a weird thing, since it wasn't created as a pilot, merely a short. When the full series was commissioned, the short was post facto considered the pilot. How is this sentence: "Adventure Time began as a seven-minute, stand-alone animated short film of the same name (this short would later be identified as the show's pilot)."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world" – I would add an "according to ..." in here because it's obviously a subjective opinion.
 * I have done as you suggested.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In a review of season four, for instance, LeChevallier complimented the show for "growing up" with its characters. - LeChevallier needs to be introduced as he isn't mentioned before this point.
 * When I was rearranging the critical reception section, I moved some stuff around, and forgot to include LeChevallier's full name and publication affiliation before he's introduced. I have corrected this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many critics have called the show one of the best animated series that has ever been made – only two publications are named so either "many critics" needs to be reworded or more sourcing added.
 * I have rewritten this as: "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists." How is that?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first game based on the series Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!! – there appear to be some words missing in this sentence.
 * Whoops! I have combined this with the next sentence so that it now makes sense: "The first game based on the series, Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!!, was announced by Pendleton Ward on his Twitter account in March 2012." How is that?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On September 27, 2011, Cartoon Network released the region 1 DVD My Two Favorite People, which features a random selection of 12 episodes from the series' first two seasons. The success of this DVD led to the release of several other region-1 compilation DVDs... – ref #234, to which this is cited, includes the title and release date of the DVD but doesn't appear to support the other claims.
 * I removed "The success of this DVD led to..." as it was extrapolation beyond what the source supports.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that the source supports "features a random selection of 12 episodes from the series' first two seasons". I'm sceptical about the use of "random", since I'm sure there was some level of decision making involved in choosing which episodes to include. 97198 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a source that lists the episodes included. I also excised "random".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments I have modified/corrected most of the issues that you raise. Concerning the sources, it appears that you unfortunately found a couple that did have issues, but in regards to a vast majority of the sources on this page (especially those that are book sources, or web sources), I've actually included the source that I quote/reference in the citation itself. Hopefully the ones you considered were the exception.--  Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. Since I don't have the time to look through the sources more thoroughly, I might wait until the article passes a source review to confidently voice my support. For clarity, though, I am satisfied with the article in all other respects – I would just like some reassurance from another reviewer about the quality and use of sources. 97198 (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I understand. I'll look into getting someone to source check this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Grapple X has carried out a source-review below. Does this reassure you about the quality of the sources?--17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging one more time just to check! Does the source-review reassure you?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, for some reason I never got a notification for the first ping. With the source review completed, I am happy to support. 97198 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Co-Executive Producers, Supervising Producers -> No need to capitalize all words
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cartoon Network commissioned a full-length series, which previewed on March 11, 2010 -> What does "previewed" mean? Within the article you mention the word once and in quotation marks.
 * I rewrote to explain that it was effectively an advance screening that the network advertised as a "preview".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ".... has developed a strong following among children, teenagers, and adults; fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world"." -> whose quote is that? also, why is it worth mentioning this anyway? the section is called "Critical reviews".
 * I've included who said and the pub.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "In an article for the LA Times, " -> Los Angeles Times
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Many critics have called the show one of the best animated series that has ever been made." -> "Many"? You only give one example from Entertainment Weekly, and the other one from The A.V. Club that says "currently on the air" which is not equal to "best animated series that has ever been made".
 * I have rewritten this as: "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists." How is that?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * David Perlmutter -> Who is he, and why his opinion matter?
 * I have explained who he is and why he is important in regards to this article (i.e. indep. cartoon scholar and critic).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. How does it all look now?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You ignored my comment about the Critical reception section. "....and has developed a strong following among children, teenagers, and adults; according to A.V. Club critic Noel Murray, fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world"" ---> It is out of place. The section is for critical reviews. It could be moved to "Fandom" section, or something.
 * I misread your initial comment. I have moved it to the start of the "Fandom" section.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, "Similarly, in a run-down of the "best animated series ever", .." does not match the reference.
 * I don't understand the issue here. The article in question is called "The best animated series ever".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the need for "Industry impact" section? You only provide one vague source with no actual examples. Could be merged with "Critical reception", with shortened quote.
 * I disagree. I don't really see how the source is vague (I mean, it specifically discusses how Adventure Time caused networks to rethink their hiring practices, as well as the tone of their shows). I also don't think that discussing the show's impact on the industry makes sense in a section about what critics have to say about it. I did, however, reformat the section a bit, converting the quote to a block quote, and tying it directly into the topic at hand—how Adventure Time has influenced the industry.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "a feature-length film is in development.", in the intro. Is there any update? It's been two years since that announcement.
 * At this time, no.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "animation style to that of Felix the Cat" -> I believe it should be linked to Felix the Cat (TV series)
 * Good catch!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Executive producer Fred Seibert compared the show's animation style to that of Felix the Cat and various Max Fleischer cartoons" -> This sentence is under "Writing". Could be moved to "Animation" section. Or by "show's animation style" they meant their general concept?
 * I have moved this to the end of the first paragraph in the "Animation" section.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I missed a few of these. Is it looking any better?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it's not that I think that "Industry impact" is not an appropriate subject to include, but it's the sourcing is what I was referring to. It's merely an opinion, the section does not include any facts or actual examples. For instance, what about mentioning creators of other shows that were inspired by Adventure Time? Also, was it Adventure Time the only show that caused that gold rush? Because the article discusses many shows. Mymis (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reworded and expanded the section accordingly.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   00:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * LEGO Dimensions -> Lego Dimensions
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ref 114 needs a date
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Emmys.com in refs is redundant
 * How so? I am listing the website as well as the publisher for the source.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * mtv.com. MTV -> MTV News
 * Done.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   22:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The websites should not be italicized, such as emmys.com or AnnieAwards.org. Also, the reference list itself takes up a third of the article, some parameters within the references could be scrapped, for instance, accessdates are redundant for refs with archived links. Locations for companies that own the websites (for instance, "Madison, Wisconsin") are also highly unnecessary.
 * The "website=" parameter that the refs use results in italicization, so that's not my call. As to the rest of your comment, I feel you are imposing your own personal preferences, as the featured article criteria merely calls for "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes", which I have included.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   00:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the criteria, it was just a suggestion in order to simplify the reference list as it is extremely long with many redundant parameter usage, in my opinion; that's why I said "could be". And you're right, you do not have to listen. Adding "Madison, Wisconsin" is confusing, because A.V. Club, publisher of the article, is based in Chicago. There are some inconsistencies within references:
 * If you wish to add all the companies that own the newspapers used in articles, ref 178 does not have one, and it's Los Angeles Times without "the", and Tribune Publishing does not exist anymore, it's Tronc now or whatnot.
 * For usage of XXXX.com, it is not consistent. Theouthousers.com, emmys.org etc are in italics but TheMarySue.com, All-Comic.com etc are not.
 * Mitch Metcalf has an article, Showbuzz Daily does not.
 * TV by the Numbers is not owned by zap2it (which also does not exist anymore) but by Tribune.
 * It is Deadline.com, not Deadline or Deadline Hollywood.
 * The Washington Post is not owned by The Washington Post Company. ->Jeff Bezos
 * Slate is not owned by The Washington Post Company. ->Graham Holdings Company
 * CartoonNetwork.com, CartoonNetwork.com, Cartoon Network. Not consistent. Choose one.
 * Huffington Post -> The Huffington Post or is it called HuffPost now
 * MovieWeb has an article
 * IndieWire, not Indiewire. And why is it in italics within the references but not within the article's body?


 * There may be many more minor mistakes. Mymis (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and acquiesced. How does this look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does look way better. Great job on the article. You have my support. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Source review: There are over 200 sources used here so I haven't checked them all, but I've taken a randomly-chosen representative sample to see if things check out.
 * Fn 156: simple fact, present in source
 * Fns 192, 193, 195: Collectively support a summary sentence
 * Fn 2: Used twice to support genre classifications, both present in source
 * Fn 50: Twitter source. Seems to be fine under WP:SELFSOURCE as it originates from an animator on the series discussing its animation technique.
 * Fn 44: Quote present in source, as is paraphrased material.
 * Fn 130: Used twice, both supporting quotes and paraphrased material. Both times accurately used.
 * Fn 62: Once supports a quote, and once a summary, both times the information is present.
 * Fn 112: Twice used to support quotes, both present in source and accurately used
 * This is just a sampling and if it is deemed not to be broad enough I can check further sources in addition to these. G RAPPLE   X  17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, -- would you also able to check/comment on the formatting of the references, and their reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Formatting looks up to snuff. Citations are templated and used consistently. There are examples of quotes nested in citations, and bundled citations, but these seem perfectly fine. Reliability also looks good—there are some citations to Twitter but these seem to be confined to sources which meet WP:SELFSOURCE, otherwise the sources used comply with reliable sourcing. Web sources are archived for additional longevity as well. G RAPPLE   X  19:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead: Concept and creation:
 * I haven't read everybody else's comments (maybe this is already explained), but is there a reason "Eight seasons of the program have aired, and a ninth and final season premiered on April 21, 2017" is cited in the lead?
 * The show just recently wasn't renewed for a tenth season, so it's still somewhat fresh news.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Rynda quickly began designing characters that fell in line with "Pen's natural aesthetic" but that were also "iconic [and] that any kid could draw and identify with".[20] Rynda and McHale also began drafting artistic guidelines for the show, so that its animation style would always be somewhat consistent."
 * Both sentences have "also" in them (sounds repetitive).
 * "characters that fell in line with "Pen's natural aesthetic" but that were also "iconic [and] that any kid could draw and identify with" " feels quite awkward to me. I'm not convinced "that were also iconic and that..." works grammatically, but even if it does, it feels awkward.
 * I changed the second "also" to "additionally", and moved it to the start of the sentence. For the first sentence, I re-wrote it as: "With the producers satisfied, Rynda quickly began designing characters that fell in line with "Pen's natural aesthetic". At the same time, he also sought to craft simple designs "that any kid could draw and identify with".

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just let me know, and I'll try my best to respond/change things.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   13:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Conception and creation:
 * "Eventually, the studio's rights to commission a full series expired, and Frederator—the short's production animation studio—pitched it to other channels." I got lost here. Frederator is the production animation studio, and their rights to commission (=produce?) a full Adventure Times series expired (how does that work and where do the rights go to?) so they were trying to get another channel to take over production? Also, I was wondering whether the fact that Frederator was the short's production animation studio should be included with one of the two earlier mentions of the company? Moisejp (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The first instance of 'studio' should really be network, so I changed it to read "Eventually, Nicktoon's rights to commission..." Basically, the network had the privilege of 'first dibs', but once that privilege (which was on a time limit) ran out, Frederator was free to shop it elsewhere.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Hoping to improve upon the "pre-school vibe" that he felt defined the original short" / "When [the Adventure Time production staff] started designing the series, we tried to keep the good things about the original short and improve on it." Sounds a bit repetitive. Would it be worthwhile to consider combining these somehow? Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It now reads, "Hoping to improve upon the 'pre-school vibe' that he felt defined the original short, Ward and his production team attempted to 'keep the good things about the original short and improve on [them]' while developing the series."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Adam Muto, a storyboard artist and creative director for the show since the first season, became the show's new showrunner." It kind of sounds here like Muto is being introduced for the first time, but actually he is mentioned a couple of times earlier in the section. Maybe mention earlier about him being storyboard artist and creative director for the first five seasons, and here only mention that he became the new showrunner? Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed his titles in that section and included them in a parenthetical sentence fragment immediately following his introduction.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing:
 * "Ward has said he does not want to push the show's PG rating." Possibly OK, but I was wondering whether this meaning of "push" could be colloquial and/or whether it will be clear to all readers which meaning of "push" is intended. If you're confident it's OK, no worries, but if you have any doubt, you could reword it. Moisejp (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Ward has said he does not want to push the boundaries of the PG rating" would be clearer. Moisejp (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. It now reads, "Ward has said he does not want to push the boundaries of the PG rating, noting, 'I've never really even thought about the rating ... we don't like stuff that's overly gross. We like cute stuff and nice things.'"-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Setting and mythology:
 * "After the broadcast of "Business Time", in which an iceberg containing reanimated businessmen floats to the surface of a lake, the show became post-apocalyptic; Ward said the production crew "just ran with it". " I see from the list of episodes that this was the eighth episode of the first season. This might be useful to include so readers get an idea of how far into the series it got before the post-apocalyptic setting was adopted. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I read a little bit father and saw "Business Time" was a preview episode before the series started, and also remembered episodes are made concurrently, so maybe my comment above doesn't make sense. I still wonder if there's a way to clarify for the reader how far into the development of the series the post-apocalyptic setting was adopted. But if it's not feasible, no big deal. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was an oversight on my part. It now reads, After the production of the episode 'Business Time'...", since the change was made after the episode was worked on, not after it aired.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Title sequence and music:
 * "The show's title sequence and theme song have stayed mostly consistent throughout its run, with three major exceptions." Are there also additional minor exceptions? If not, "major" could be dropped here. Also, is it three exceptions or four: "Fiona and Cake", Stakes, Islands, and Elements?
 * Good catch. I removed 'major' and changed it to 'four'.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Frederator, Seibert's production company, often posted demos and full versions of songs sung by the characters." Here does "posted" mean put them somewhere online? If so, on their official website? Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarified, changing 'posted' to 'uploaded'; I then then added 'to their official website.'-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Still making my way through the article... now up to Critical reviews:
 * "The show also rarely, but occasionally, refers to popular music." I'm not sure that this sentence adds a lot, but if you want to keep it, I won't argue. Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 2011, Entertainment Weekly named Adventure Time number 20 on its 25 "Greatest Animated Series Ever" list.[106][114] Similarly, in a run-down of the "best animated series ever", The A.V. Club included Adventure Time and called it "one of the most distinctive cartoons currently on the air." " These two sentences sound quite repetitive to me: one talks about the "Greatest Animated Series Ever" list, and the second about the "best animated series ever". One idea could be to merge these together, possibly something like: "The series has been included on lists of the best animated series of all time. These include a number 20 (out of 25) ranking by Entertainment Weekly, and a listing by The A.V. Club, which called it "one of the most distinctive cartoons currently on the air". “ Or if you have another idea for how to merge them, that could work too. Moisejp (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I incorporated your suggestion, although I left the first sentence as "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists," as a previous reviewer didn't like the "best animated series of all time" idea.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Academic interest:
 * Consider specifying "Researcher Emma A. Jane" (or whatever title is appropriate) and to Carolyn Leslie to make it all the clearer that the quotes passages are indeed academic discussions?
 * I added who Emma Jane is, but I couldn't find who Carolyn Leslie is, so I just specified that she's writing in an academic journal.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fandom:
 * "Reporter Emma-Lee Moss said, "This year's [2014] Comic-Con schedule reflected Adventure Time's growing success, with several screenings, a dramatic reading with the show's voice talent and a special Adventure Time Cosplay ball."[130] The show is also popular with cosplayers, or performance artists who wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent characters from the Adventure Time universe." The first sentence mentions cosplay, but the second sentence is written as though it is introducing cosplay for the first time (it uses "also" and it gives a definition of cosplay for those who may not be familiar with it). I'm not sure the best solution to suggest, but it doesn't flow well for me as is. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the "and a special Adventure Time Cosplay ball" bit from the quote. My reasoning is that the very next sentence expands upon cosplay, so there's no need to really mention it prior. The quote now shows what was going on at the 2014 Comic-Con, but has been rephrased so as to not imply that only those things were occurring.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope to finish this review off in the next couple of days if possible. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ref #206 has a date that hasn't occurred yet. I understand that is the announced date of the book. But would it be more appropriate to use a press release or something for ref #206? Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally, for something like that, we should have "forthcoming" as the date, but I don't believe Wikipedia supports that parameter.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I thought of a work around. I have hidden the template citation, and manually recreated it. However, I have also added "forthcoming" after the date. Does that look OK?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Episodes:
 * "In 2017, during its eighth season, another miniseries debuted, which was entitled Islands." Minor comment, but this wording sounds like you are introducing Islands for the first time, but it has already been mentioned a few paragraphs up. Moisejp (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed this whole section to read: "During the latter part of its run, the show began to experiment with the miniseries format. The first of these was Stakes (2015), which aired during the show's seventh season; the following season, both Islands (2016) and Elements (2016) aired."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. I'm satisfied now, thanks. It looks good. Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.