Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)/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 Ian Rose 15:58, 9 April 2014.

Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)

 * Nominator(s): Me5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2012 animated series Napoleon Dynamite. I have improved this article substantially and it is now a Good Article. I believe it is now ready for featured article status. Me5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Curly Turkey
This article seems awfully short for an entire TV series, even if there were only six episodes—is it really that comprehensive? I can't see the "Home media" section flying—only one sentence, and the "sources" are the retailers' websites? Does that not fall under Original Research? Ditto "International broadcasting". I also noticed some spelling errors—obviously this thing should be in American spelling, but I see "cancelling" in the final paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've used every source I could find that had new information on the subject, I don't think there is anything else to tell, at least nothing that could be verified. I don't see how I could make the home media section any longer, there is no other information. As for the sources for the home media section I used featured article The Wire as one of my example articles to help write Napoleon Dynamite, if you look at The Wire's DVD section it uses Amazon as source for the Region 1 and 2 DVD releases, so I thought the sources I used would be all right. Does The Wire article contain original research as well? Essentially ditto for the international broadcasting section. I thought "cancelling" was the correct spelling, it is even listed in the oxford english dictionary, but I'll change it if it is needed. I looked over the article again and couldn't find any other spelling errors, please bring them to my attention. Me5000 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not asking for a longer list—I'm wondering if it's truly notable if nobody but the advertisers and retailers bothered to note it. Either way, a one-sentence section is hard to justify—it's unlikely the info in it couldn't find a home somewhere else in the article, if it is indeed included at all (to be honest, the info seems pretty trivial to me. If I were the one editing this article I'd simply drop it). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Cancelling" is correct Commonwealth spelling. American spelling tends not to double final consonants when the final syllable is unstressed.  Why?  Ask an American—I'm Canadian.
 * I have changed "cancelling" to "canceling" and removed the home media section. Me5000 (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The prose seems fine from what I've skimmed of it, but the introduction is rather short. Why not make one that's two paragraphs? Tezero (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the lead and it is now two paragraphs. Me5000 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Other comments from Tezero:
 * "Some critics thought it translated well to animation, while others did not." - Kind of a cliche sentence. Either talk about why they did or didn't, or rephrase the sentence to something like "Critics were divided on how well the source material translated to animation."
 * "averaged 4 million" --> "averaged only 4 million"
 * Mention something in the intro about the show's unusually short run of six episodes.
 * "2004 cult film of the same name": Remove "cult"; it was a pretty high-grossing film and, at the very least, its status as a cult classic isn't relevant.
 * "get sick of the characters": A little informal. What about "tire of"?
 * "Guest voices included Amy Poehler, Jennifer Coolidge, Sam Rockwell, and Jemaine Clement.": Relevance? It's a one-sentence paragraph, and these actors are all listed later.
 * "Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Staten Island Advance gave the show negative reviews, as well as neutral reviews": Mediocre grammar. Change the "as well as neutral reviews" to "while it received neutral reviews from" or something.
 * You should probably add citations to the character lists. Tezero (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did everything. Also realized the reception section was kind of bad and expanded it. When sourcing the character list I had to cut down some of the info because I couldn't find sources for some information. Me5000 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Support per addressing of my and Curley Turkey's comments and the article's (partially resultant) high quality. Nice! Tezero (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Given the relatively meager number of reviewers and the fact that there's been no activity for about a month, I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.