Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phineas and Ferb/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 SandyGeorgia 21:43, 2 May 2009.

Phineas and Ferb

 * Nominator(s): — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the page is full, completely sourced, long, of high quality, and has very good writing and images. The page was a hard work from me and the community, and displays the great quality that it can reach. The sections are all right, the images are not cluttered, all comments are sourced, etc. I don't see any issues with it in it's current state, which I just rewrote. — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment just looking at the lead:
 * References should always be after punctuation, so an example sentence should read like: Blahblahblah.(reference). Please fix this.
 * Link B-Plot as some readers may not know what it means
 * There is an extra period after reference 5 in the lead
 * In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I think boy's should be boys'.
 * As I said, this is just the lead, but it seems the rest of the article is better. Mm40 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed all of the points you mentioned, except for the first one, as I wasn't very sure of what you meant. I, as well, removed a red link, as I realized that might not be good. Also, for some reason a "copyright image" tag is up, saying there's to many of them. Does it mean that I instead need to hotlink to the same image on Wikimedia, or, what? — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, encourage withdrawal. I admire your work at this project and hope that you continue to edit here. I feel, however, that this article does not meet the FA Criteria or even the GA criteria at the moment. Check out Avatar: The Last Airbender, .hack//Sign, or New Cutie Honey for some examples of animated television series that have "Good articles". NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference. Could you please explain what is actually wrong with it so I can fix them? — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's start with references. References should be formatted using the citation templates (cite web, cite news, etc.), not just left as bare URLs. In addition, while I admire the intensive amount of information you added, I feel that there is something more that could be added. Compare this article with .hack//Sign or New Cutie Honey, for example: There is simply a great deal more information in the .hack//Sign or New Cutie Honey articles than in this one. I am unsure if this is because there are not very many sources (it happens), but even Avatar: The Last Airbender has ~4,000 words of readable prose; this article has just around 2,000. Are you sure that the article is comprehensive enough, and that you couldn't write a bit more with the sources at hand? I can't really point to anything specific, but I just got an overall impression of incompleteness after I finished reading the article. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, encourage withdrawl. 1st - It's not even a Good Article yet, how is it supposed to be Featured? 2nd - I see grammatical errors skimming the article.  3rd - One section is labeled as needing expansion.  4th - Way too many copyrighted images.  5th - Not a fan, barely knew the series existed, but the article seems like doesn't have enough information to be a Featured Article.  Congratulations on your work so far, and I hope you can get this article to Featured Status.  Good luck and שלום, mynameinc 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, those pages have just as good amount of information as this one. I suppose I could search around and find some more information about the merchandise, add characters, and expand the writing and artistic styling. Would that help? Now, onto mynameinc's comments, all of those tags were added after I made it. Nothing I read ever mentioned GA being needed, so I never tried it. What grammatical errors are you talking about? What is wrong with a couple of copyrighted images. They are all tagged correctly, I don't see why it's such a big issue. The Simpsons has plenty of images, one of which is huge and clutters it's section. I also guess I can add more info, I just thought it had as much as other FA Emma Watson. Anyways, I guess if I get another opposal I'll withdraw this, fix points, try for GA, then FA. — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all of The Simpsons' images are copyrighted.  And it helps a lot if the community agrees to GA first, a traditional steping stone to FA.  I said I wasn't a fan, so I wouldn't know if this article could be considered done.  Those tags are there, my response was not dependent upon the time when the tags were added.  I think copyrighted images in an FA is a "big issue", because our FAs are supposed to be the best our community can offer, and I think there could be a lower copyrighted picture/word count density.  FA is supposed to be the absolute best.  If you see an obvious way it can be approved, it isn't FA material.  The amount of information for an FA is dependent upon the subject, but, regardless, this page has less information than The Simpsons for Emma Watson.  mynameinc 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But aren't the images good for reference? — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see at least one that (more than likely) isn't needed in the article. mynameinc 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me which one, so I can removed it. Quality is important to me. Also, sorry if I seem to be comparing this to the Simpson's page, It's the only TV show FA I know. — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained on your talk page, and it is good to compare to other FAs, preferably more than one, so that editors new to FAC and you can see the standard. mynameinc 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you all for the help. I'll withdraw this until I can expand the page more, and I suppose get it GA first as well. — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FAC/ar and please leave templates in place until the bot goes through. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.