Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scooby-Doo/archive2

Scooby-Doo

More or less a self-nomination. Originally nominated (prematurely) in June, before I was actually done working on it. Worked really hard to keep any and all cruft out of the article, and to provide a general overview of the television show, spin-offs, and the resulting media properties. The original reasons for objections (lack of references, image fair-use rationals missing) should all be taken care of. --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: Very well done. Good references, great writing, and I learned a lot of interesting information about Scooby-Doo that I never knew. Some minor mistakes:

• In "The CBS years", the third paragraph alternates too much between ghost and monster.
• In "The Scooby clones" reference #12 should be after the period.
• After the spoiler warning in "Telefilms and direct-to-video features", it says "only to find is actually a school..." should be an "it" in there.
• In "Assumed 'adult themes'", reference 18 should be after the period.

Those are just very minor quibbles. You've done a great job with the article. -Dark Kubrick 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Very good article. I personally am pleasantly suprised since I used to be a fan as a child. What inspired you to write about this topic? - Tutmosis 14:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I used to be a fan as a child too, and I have studied animation. --FuriousFreddy 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree, very good, and technically-ready. My only quibble is that it seems a bit light in references for length compared to recent nominees, but I'm not that good a judge of that. It seems good to me. --Kitch 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of references isn't what matters; it's what's found in the references that are present. I've been seeing a lot of "citation stuffing" in a lot of recent FACs: they often don't count on the reviewers to read the article, so they stuff the article with (often non-informative) references, which often aren't even properly formatted. I made every effort here to make each reference count; this is actually the most citations I've used in any FAC I've ever worked on. --FuriousFreddy 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Scooby-Support: Just one minor concern though, should we be using Ibid for dynamic content? Adding a reference could easily break the endnotes. Other than that, well done! Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 05:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If a reference gets added, you just remove the "Ibid" and place the regular short citation. --FuriousFreddy 14:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My concern wasn't what has to be done, rather whether it will be done. I'd rather see this taken care of now instead of relying on every other editor to do this. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 14:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. --FuriousFreddy 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Object. If you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Television you will see that you need to have a section about critical reviews. --Maitch 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The project page says the article should include a section that should either either critique the show, or comment on its impact. A large "impact" section is already present. Nevertheless, I'm searching through the New York Times (pay) archives to find a contemporary review or two, in addition to recent reviews of the DVDs and such. --FuriousFreddy 14:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Added requested section about critical reviews. --FuriousFreddy 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Great. I have changed my vote to support. --Maitch 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What does "the reincarnation of the Mystery, Inc. gang from other comic characters" mean? It's not clear from the context. Andrew Levine 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know, and I can't pull a copy of the Sluggy Freelance comic in questi on to investigate (another user added that reference). I've revised it. --FuriousFreddy 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- good work. Jkelly 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)