Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive1


 * 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 Ucucha 13:10, 8 October 2011.

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
Discussion should be centered on the criteria listed at WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nominator(s): Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria, and is considered a WP:Good article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As a primary editor of the page, I'm not disputing that its close to an FAC, as it has had a PR/CE, and the like. I will help anyway I can to address FAC commentors' suggestions, but I do have a slight bit of concern that there may be more work that I am unaware of in the prose. (However, I have assured that reliable sourcing is there, NFC is used where appropriate, etc. etc.). --M ASEM  (t) 18:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as one can likely see from this article, this nom can potentially attract a lot of off-site commenters due to the fandom. A caution to the FA moderators on that possibility. --M ASEM  (t) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - While this article is of unusual high quality (even though the bronies are the only reason why), a few issues remain (such as people bitching about EqD). This really should have been discussed before making a nomination in my opinion.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rainbow Dash. Can you provide more detail about what issues you feel are present in the article, with reference to the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The major issue with this article is that it's a siamese twin. The reason is because you have two major areas, being the actual show and fandom. The truth is while the fandom can be split and easily be it's own article (hell, even a GA if I wanted to), the other area depends on it to be it's major organs (the massive amount of sources). My whole stance on the article becoming a FA, is that the fandom has to keep doing it's job by stirring media attention, in order for anything to happen.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe this article needs more work before it can be considered a featured article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All web sources need publisher info and access date
 * All print sources need page numbers
 * Who is Summer Hayes, and what are her qualifications?
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? deviantart.com? http://thevoiceoftv.com? http://www.toymania.com? http://www.mylittleponynews.com?
 * Unreliable-source tag needs to be addressed
 * Check for formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * Use a consistent date format
 * In general, citation formatting needs to be more consistent
 * The New York Times, not New York Times
 * Check that your wikilinks go where you want them to - for example, Top Gear
 * Given the length of the article, the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs
 * Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "Twilight becomes close friends with five other ponies; Applejack..." is incorrectly punctuated
 * File:Mlp_fim_storyboard_sample.png: source link is dead
 * See here for a list of potentially problematic links
 * Don't use contractions in article text
 * Manual of Style issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "deviantart.com?" I knew that would come up, as it does in every review.  The references are to Lauren Faust's personal deviantart.  It is her personal site, and the main means to which she communicates with the fans.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Equestria Daily is a situational source; it is a fanblog, but recognized as the foremost site for the show (as reported in more RS sources). As such, the references to ED are only for interviews with influential figures from the show (Faust, Thiessen), and not for other details. Deviantart.com, as Harizotoh notes, refer to known showrunners with pages there (Faust for sure).  --M ASEM  (t) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Need more details on EqD - what RSs are you referring to? Has this ever been discussed at RSN? For deviantart, Faust's pages would be considered primary/self-published and should be treated as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100 for EQD. And sure, Faust's DA page is a primary SPS source, but we're using it for her statements on the matter and not reporting of details she'd be unaware of. --M ASEM (t) 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I believe this article, while it does have a couple problems, is worthy of featured article status.--COOLTUX345 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please detail these problems and explain why you feel this article meets the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support The article may have some small problems, but as it is it provides excellent coverage on the topic. It is worthy of featured page status, as long as the errors are fixed. Biglulu (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please detail these problems and explain why you feel this article meets the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - this article is not ready yet. There are numerous questionable sources, as outlined by Nikkimaria (do you have any commentary that proves their reliability? Something from WP:RSN perhaps?), and looking at Checklinks some are not even functional. I must also profess my astonishment that multiple people who have not edited in almost a year (and much longer) suddenly manage to find their way to this FAC page to scribble support less than 24 hours after it is nominated. If only all featured article candidates received so much attention! Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've cautioned, there's a significant fandom behind this show that this FAC is going to attract, and the fact that this article is at FAC was advertized on at least one of the sites; I've tried to caution offsite that driveby's don't help in the long run (though if they driveby and improve the article, all the better). --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Masem, please continue that effort, as drive-bys are not going to help this nomination. Melicans, I agree with you about sourcing, but given what Masem reports I think we can assume that the off-site canvassing is not the fault of the nominators, but just an unfortunate reality of these types of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying, I'm trying. As for checklinks, I just ran it this morning and only one is reporting as a unreachable link as of today.  Too early to be worried about a backup source for it.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Besides the issues raised by Nikkimaria above (which I agree with) the following also raise concerns for me. this, this, and this. Also, a number of websites lack publishers, and there are other inconsistencies. Keep in mind that it's not just "reliable" but "high quality" that is the determining factor for sourcing at FAC. You want your interviews to be from high quality journalists, not from fan sites. At the moment, too much of the sourcing is in my mind below the high quality threshold and I'm going to have to oppose until better sources are found. Obviously, the subject is being covered in the mainstream media, so we shouldn't be relying on fan sites for as much of this article as it currently does. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be difficult. It is not the show that is being covered in mainstream but the adult men's fascination with the show that is. An issue that this article has had is that we could spin off "brony" to its own article, which would be well sourced, etc. etc., but would considerably weaken the actual coverage of the show within this article.  As such, it comes to rely more on what the fandom can get that talks actually about the show (eg interviews with the creators) than what mainstream media says about it - remember, if you subtract out the fandom, this is just a toyetic girls show on a cable network shown once a week - notable that it exists but certainly not going to be the subject of deep mainstream coverage; yet through the fandom, more coverage has been discovered.
 * As for two sources above, though both blog-like sources; Cartoon Brew is Jerry Beck's site, a notable expert in modern day animation and thus would be considered a expert source for opinion (as its used here) on animation. Boing Boing is written by experts in modern journalism and the impact of the Internet.  Can't say much on the dailybarmoeter but I think we could remove it as most of the info is duplciation now from newer sources. --M ASEM  (t) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of spinning off Brony as its own article, that was already discussed. There was some consensus was to merge and create a redirect to the FiM article, which is what was done.  The argument was that other fandoms (eg. Trekkies) have a lot more history and notability to them, and the FiM fandom has not reached that level yet.  So it could be spun off in the future, but not now.  [Link]--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - Copyscape has revealed that 3% of the prose matches the summary given here. The matching text is shown in bold here. Could the nominator explain this please? Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously animeflavor.com copied the description off Wikipedia (as they did for all their other summaries).  Grue   18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a (the?) primary author, I will vouch that the article text is new, paraphrasing other sources and not copypulled. As I've never seen that animeflavor source, I suspect what Grue says is true - they copypulled the text from Wikipedia. --M ASEM (t) 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And checking the toolserver link, especially the plot summary (the bulk being caught) is my unique addition to the article. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the diff that shows when the paragraph in question was added? Graham Colm (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked the article's history and found that "Equestia" (sic) occurs in an earlier version of the paragraph. This is evidence of priority IMHO. Thanks for the reassurances. Graham Colm (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a great topic, and the article is good, but I don't think it comes close enough to passing our FA criteria at this time. It is immediately apparent that the lede is inadequate and many sources are lacking. – Quadell (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The article has the potential to be FA, and I have no doubt it will be eventually, but the time is not now. Nikkimaria has raised an excellent list of things which will need attending to before this article is prepared. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.