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 SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [1].

A Rugrats Chanukah[edit]

Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fully meets the criteria for an FA. Almost all sources are offline, media resources, so I doubt there are any questions on reliability, and it has undergone a copyedit, so the prose should be coherent. The production section might be seemed as lacking, as there are only two paragraphs, but I assure you it is all the info available, and should be acceptable. Note that I have another FAC opened for Dan Povenmire, so please alert me if I need to hold off on this FAC until that one closes. The Flash {talk} 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and forgot to mention, it is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. The Flash {talk} 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed the second paragraph to begin with "The episode[...]" The Flash {talk} 02:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name—I was asked to look this over. I'm a bit concerned with ref formatting.

  • Done. Note that Knight Ridder is a newspaper, so it is a published work that needs to be italicized. The Flash {talk} 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure Knight Ridder is a newspaper and not a newspaper company? Knight Ridder does not list a newspaper with that name, and I've yet to find a Web page or any source online that even mentions a paper by that name. I want evidence (a cover scan, third-party source, etc.) because I smell fish. --an odd name 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, correct you are. The source I was reading this from put it as "Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service," which I did not realize then simply meant it was the Tribune News Service, as published by Knight Ridder. Fixed. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that's not a newspaper either, just a company. What is the "source [you were] reading this from" anyway? If it's really reliable, I see nothing to hide, and if you can't find it outside of some quote on a fan site you want to keep secret, remove it. --an odd name 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called Encyclopedia.com, which collects samples from thousands of newspapers and other publications from across the nation. Like LexisNexis, but free. I've changed it to publisher. The Flash {talk} 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Again, asked to check.) The few full web links check out, and nothing else seems weird about it, so I might as well. A few more things:

  • I don't really think it would be spam or anything, but a lot of the reception bits are things that I've read from the search results that show bits and pieces of the article, not the actual article—while it shows the article for a few paragraphs, you need a free membership (which I don't have) to view the whole thing. Like I said: LexisNexis but free. The Flash {talk} 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I've nothing else. --an odd name 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. :) The Flash {talk} 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Yeah, I couldn't find it, but it appears to have been taken care of already (?) The Flash {talk} 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 15:06, December 14, 2009

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • The reason not all use the locations field is that the info is unknown. There's no policy against using it for certain refs, correct? The Flash {talk} 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "It is the first of the show's fourth season and the sixty-sixth overall." First what? Episode? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I think Tony was referring to the repetition of "fourth season" and "season-four" that existed before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony did actually say that the change was fine, but I've gone ahead and added "episode" to the sentence. The Flash {talk} 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments as promised from Mm40 (talk · contribs)

Lead
Plot summary
Production
  • Fixed it myself. Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • Done with the "time" thing, but what do you mean about the non-breaking space? The Flash {talk} 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NBSP; MoS thing. I've added it myself but you may want to get familiar as FAC folks are picky about 'em. Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other

The article does great justice to the show; I'll happily support when these issues are fixed. By any chance, is "A Rugrats Passover" next? Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure if the Passover special is ready just yet, but after some cleanup and maybe some better sources I'll probably hitch her up for FAC. :) The Flash {talk} 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does show up here, you can be sure the see my review. I've replied to you a couple of times above. Thanks for your work, Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem; thanks yourself for the support. :) The Flash {talk} 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: article uses a single copyrighted image with qualified fair use rationale.[2] No issue. Jappalang (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but that's all the information available; there is the official press statement, but it itself isn't much more then what the section already says, plus it's focused on the 1998 controversy. The Flash {talk} 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asked to revisit. Full prose support. ceranthor 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Ok, this subject area is completely outside my normal purview, but I'll give it a try. You have here the perspective of someone who's never seen the show, and barely knows what the Rugrats are. As such, I will mostly be evaluating prose. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, that's how they refer to it in all the magazines and books I've looked through. The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking special. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"The plot involves a visit by the babies," what babies? Rugrat babies?

*"The episode was written by J. David Stem and David N. Weiss and directed by Raymie Muzquiz." How about a comma after Weiss?

Plot summary

  • The Maccabees. I'm unsure how its confusing, there's only a mention of the Rugrats once in the para. and following that it just mentions Judah and the Maccabees.... The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I haven't seen the show. The paragraph starts out by saying the rugrats pretend they are the story's characters. The next three sentences talk about the adventures of Judah and his army, and I presume from the second sentence that Judah is Tommy. So when I get to the fifth sentence which says "Upon their arrival they discover" I just not sure if the "they" means the rugrats, the Maccabees, or the Rugrats pretending they are Maccabees. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if I can make it clearer in the summary, but here's a bit of an explanation: as with several television programs, this episodes features someone telling a story. The story is shown, and—for both representation and comedic purposes—the main characters' appearances are used to represent the characters featured. Therefore, "they" is referring to to Maccabees, whose appearance is based on that of the main characters. Does that clarify it? The Flash {talk} 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does when you explain it, but it's still not quite clear from just reading the text. I'll chalk it up to my own neurological dysfunctions and strike the issue. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "responded by suggesting"... "describing it as"... "and was considered to be" Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. How about just removing the unnecessary words "was considered to be", I think it would read fine after that. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I do that it'll be even more ridged and read "Paul Germain, co-creator of Rugrats, responded with the concept of a Passover special instead, as a 'funny idea'" The Flash {talk} 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, no, its the crew that it clearly mentions just a few sentences above... And they successfully produced it, I'm not entirely sure how much clearer it can get. Actually, yes, it is possible to "unsuccessfully produce a tv show;" production faults could lead to the idea being scraped all together midproduction, something which has occurred several times throughout television history. The Flash {talk} 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the problem is then, the "crew" is mentioned in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, but I have no idea who they are. Is crew short for production crew? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you put "production crew" in the article to help out Luddites like me? Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on the width of your browser, the sentence might read like so: "J. David Stem and David N." (line break) "Weiss collaborated to write the script..." See what I mean? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do not, actually. What should I do to fix it, nonetheless? The Flash {talk} 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out the initial, put non-breaking spaces between the initials, or use a ((nowrap)) template around the name. It's not really a big deal though, just tweaking. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessary, no, nor is it always available info. The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read through your summaries, and, as you noted, they are all minor. You only note that you think it needs reviewing, so if you believe so, it would be best if you point them out. As above, consensus is leading to a support, but if you believe there are concerns that need fixing for it to pass its FAC, please state so and perhaps directly state which bits need to be fixed. The Flash {talk} 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewers aren't expected to list every problem. Anyway, here are a few things:
  • "the episode and others featuring Grandpa Boris and his wife Minka also attracted controversy" "also" is unnecessary here.
  • "The babies listen and pretend that they are the story's characters." "pretend" is vague here. Did they actually enact the story themselves or just imagine themselves in it?
  • "The Pickles, a functional, American family, fears that Boris's bitter" Basic subject-verb agreement problem here.
  • I think that it should be "The Pickles ... fear". However, I will ask Tony1, a grammar expert, to be sure.
  • "Once production closed on "A Rugrats Passover"" Perhaps "concluded" is a better verb?
  • "in the Kids 2–11 demographic" Why is "Kids" capitalized?
  • In ratings info, the demographic is always capitalized. I believe it asserts it as a proper noun in the situation. The Flash {talk} 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite a source or Wikipedia guideline for this? You may be right, but it's impossible to tell by looking at existing FA articles for this. For example, from "Confirmed Dead": "The episode received a 6.5/16 in the key adults 18–49 demographic." Another, from "No Such Thing as Vampires": ""No Such Thing as Vampires" finished first among total viewers and adults 18–49 for its night." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "himself Jewish, professed himself dumbfounded by the criticism" "himself ... himself" repetition is jarring.
  • "by the character reciting" --> "by the character's reciting" or "by the character's recitation of"
  • I didn't read closely enough to decide whether this is FA level; these are issues I saw on a quick skim. However, quite a few of the issues I saw above demonstrate that the article has not quite attained the level of polish that FAs are expected to have. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else done. I'm also unsure how these (what seem to be) minor issues can draw away from its FA quality. The Flash {talk} 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has already undergone a thorough copyedit from an independent copyeditor, so I'm not sure how more of the same thing will fix it. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if we're still finding basic problems, I would say the copyedit was not sufficient and you need to get someone else. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem there is CEG might as well be dead—backlog goes back almost to 2008 on their request page, and I do not know anyone else who would be able to copyedit. Do you have any recommendations? And I was referring to your comments, lol. The Flash {talk} 03:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asking what copyeditor you are referring to. As to who: I would look for interested parties in your subject area. Fish for expert editors in the television and television-show projects. There are plenty of them who have brought TV articles up to FA status. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I haven't re-read since Steve's edits—I will do so tonight. Perhaps the problems are already resolved. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caveat: I didn't have a lot of time, but I think the more obvious stuff has been caught, enough that anything remaining should be minor enough to be easily cleaned up. Steve T • C 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken my opposition based on the recent improvements. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and—more importantly—thank you for fixing most of them yourself, lol. Your adjustments seem fine and your explanations for them also are definitely justifiable. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome; if I get time later today I'll see if I can give some pointers for the rest of the article. All the best, Steve T • C 08:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've wiped my opposition. I didn't have a massive amount of time, but I reckon I've fixed the remaining obvious prose bumps. It might be worth pinging Andy to see if he agrees. One last thing, a link in the "Plot" section goes to Menorah (Temple); the infobox image shows a nine-branched Menorah. I haven't seen the episode (my kid is more of a Spongebob nut), but if the Menorah featured is also nine-branched, shouldn't the link be to Menorah (Hanukkah)? Anyway, good luck with the rest of it, Steve T • C 10:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, thank you. I have fixed the Menorah issue, so consider everything fixed :) The Flash {talk} 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More