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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2022 [1].

Hannah Montana[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Hannah Montana, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Miley Cyrus. This was a massively successful TV series and franchise which launched the career of Cyrus. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in December 2020. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous collaborators @JAYFAX: @Heartfox: @TheSandDoctor: @LM150: @Some Dude From North Carolina: @SandyGeorgia: @ImaginesTigers: @Casliber: @TheJoebro64: @Allied45: @Panini!: I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you! SatDis (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho[edit]

References[edit]

(MOS:REFLINK supports duplicate links in citations). TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheDoctorWho:, thanks for the comments. I have addressed all of the suggestions, particularly the changes to the references you have listed. I also added details on the two crossover specials you mentioned above in the "Filming" section. I was only able to include a short sentence on each, as there are a lack of FA-quality reliable sources on these. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! The added information about the crossover looks great to me. The article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder and I will ideally post a review within a week. To be fully transparent, I reviewed the article on the GAN level. As the article is rather long (and that is understandable given the show's popularity), it will take me some time to read through it again thoroughly enough to do a FAC review.

I do have one clarification question. From my understanding, Disney had operated under an unspoken rule that its shows could not air more than 65 episodes (which would be either two or three seasons). Was there any discussion on how Hannah Montana was an exception to that rule? I believe this rule was already thrown by the time Hannah Montana aired, but I was just curious if this was ever brought up in the coverage on the show since it went beyond what was previously limited. Apologies if I have already asked you this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Aoba47:. The 65 episode rule was never brought up for Hannah. I can think of some earlier examples, such as That's So Raven being one of the first to break the rule. And for Kim Possible, fans specifically campaigned for a fourth season after it had already ended. A fourth season was becoming the new normal by the time Hannah was ending. Thanks! SatDis (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes sense. It is understandable that sources would discuss this rule in the context of shows that were either affected by it or those that were the first to break that rule. As you have already said, Hannah was neither of these two things so it makes sense for sources to focus on other things related to the series. By the way, I have done some small copy-edits to the article while I am reading it. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with or ask about it here. I do not want to take up too much space in this review space on smaller matters. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or if anything requires further clarification. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again and very likely support it for promotion at that point. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thanks for the comments, all of your copy-edits were fine with me. All of the above has been addressed.
  • For the "another commentator", I struggled to identify who the author of the source was.
  • I would say something along the lines of "a reviewer for DVDizzy.com" so the publication is named in the prose and readers are made fully aware of where this information is coming from. I looked at the quote in the citation by the way, and I think it would be notable to mention that the reviewer finds that Stewart becomes more obnoxious as the series progresses. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thank you!
  • No further news on the spin-off, it appears to have just been a rumour.
  • That is what I thought. Any further news on this would likely get a lot of media attention. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reminder of the Kevin Hart source. I have added a few points, but I would appreciate you reading over the changes as I wasn't sure exactly how to include it. SatDis (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for adding the information. I made a small correction to the citation as Peacock is the publisher and YouTube is the platform that they published the video on.
  • Thanks, I fixed a similar Vanity Fair interview video.
  • I have not watched the interview yet, but was there further explanation for this sentence: "Cyrus explained in 2021 that she found it difficult to separate herself from the persona of Hannah Montana."? Was it because the media and fans perceived her this way or was it more on a personal level? I'd keep this part brief, but I was curious if there was more information. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: You are spot on for both of those reasons. I was actually thinking of including "personally and from media attention"? Not sure how to word that without confusing readers. Should I remove the line altogether? SatDis (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I would leave the sentence in the article for now as I do think it is helpful and adds further context, but I would also be interested to see what other reviewers have to say about it. I support the article based on the prose. This is separate, but I would recommend converting File:Hannah Montana Logo.PNG into the SVG format as the tag suggests. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again for your time @Aoba47:, and I will look into the image conversion. SatDis (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Be warned though that it is about a much more explicit musical subject (a song called "No Panties"), but since Miley has performed "My Neck, My Back (Lick It)", maybe she would approve of this song too lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

I'm a very simple-minded creature. All this time I could've sworn that Hannah Montana starred Taylor Swift; I was confused when I saw the name Miley Cyrus everywhere. In hopes to make myself seem less crazy I searched to see if Taylor Swift had any connection to Hannah Montana, and was relieved to see she cameod in the movie. I'll have comments in a little while. Panini!🥪 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Lead
Story and characters and Themes
  • This also applies to the latter half of the first paragraph ("While Miley discloses...of her childhood") and the third paragraph ("Tyler Bickford of...element of childhood").
Production
Reception
  • Additionally, this has the same stray ref issues listed above.
  • Also also, "He called the series 'genre-defining'" is a pretty short sentence and could probably be merged.
US television rankings
Public image and Lawsuits
Other Media

Overall, solid article! Once these are satisfied I'll be happy to support. Please do reach out if you have any more FACs cooking in the future. Besides, it gets me free points in the WikiCup, which I highly reccomend checking out. Panini!🥪 18:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Panini!: Thank you for the comments, how funny that you thought this starred Taylor Swift. I hope the article filled in your missing information!
  • Disney+ was not its premiere broadcast, therefore I have removed the line altogether.
  • Actually, in the series, Blue Jeans being introduced also comes as a surprise (the horse is only mentioned on earlier occasions).
  • I have changed to "High School Musical (2006) and earlier franchises involving music." to encompass some of the other shows mentioned.
  • Thanks for the suggestion to move the Casting paragraph - I like how it sits now.
  • Upon reflecting on Reception, I have changed the lead to read: "However, television critics found fault with its writing and depiction of gender roles and stereotypes. The show helped launch Cyrus's musical career and established her as a teen idol; Cyrus, however, began to develop an increasingly provocative public image, which led to the series receiving criticism for having a negative influence on its audience." I believe this highlights a large chunk of the negative reception.
  • The television ratings table relies on averages which are referenced in the article for the episodes list. I believe this table should be removed and would like your opinion.
  • For the lawsuit, I have added "alleged he was unfairly terminated by Disney in response to giving testimony within the arbitration". Thanks for picking that up. Thanks for the praise of that section - it is amazing to hear the legal battle was recent.
  • I believe I have addressed everything, please let me know if I missed something. SatDis (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good here, so I'll leave a Support. About the table, however; it seems like every other Disney Channel TV show uses this table (except Shake it Up). However, the TV show MOS suggests combining the average viewership details with the series overview table (with citation for the numbers). I think you won't lose too much if the rest of those details are removed. Panini!🥪 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Let's not screw this up

  • This was gradual and hard to date.
  • It doesn't appear this way in my view; not sure how to fix that.
  • I have tried to tweak, but this is tricky when "she" could refer to Miley, Lilly or Hannah.
  • Reworded.
  • Have changed to "aged twelve" as it previously states "aged eleven at the time".
  • I actually think Hannah was an early example of this! Lizzie McGuire and That's So Raven have both parents!
    • I... was referring to those in Disney films, more... because, y'know, Bambi, Snow White, etc... Pamzeis (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as we are discussing the impact of other projects on the development of Hannah. And the musical consistency created by the executives.
  • Thanks for picking up. Moved.
  • Split!
  • Reworded.
  • Thanks for spotting that one.
  • Fixed.
  • Basically they could've received $18million but they were already $24million in debt. So no payment. It's written how the source states it so I'm not sure how I could write that without original research.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • Reworded.
  • Shuffled.

I think that's it from me, in addition to a few tweaks that you can revert if you want to. Overall, great article! I definitely want to watch the series now. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Best of luck! Pamzeis (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pamzeis: Thank you for your comment and thanks for the suggestions. I have tried to respond to each above, and I hope it doesn't sound like I am negating too many of your ideas. I just hope I can help you to understand the purpose of some of the decisions. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have one more comment that is not that major:

Source review[edit]

  • Removed.
  • I have removed the use of this source aside from it being used for reception by a reviewer.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Due to this being an undergraduate work, I have removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.

There's also loads of academic coverage available at WP:RSP. Examples include:

And quite a bit more, just picking out a few.

I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing, given that the article uses quite a few lower-tier web sources at the expense of scholarly literature. Hog Farm Talk 06:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the source review. I have removed all of the sources listed above due to unreliability. Thank you for your list of academic coverage - I have actually already incorporated the "Tween Intimacy" source heavily in the article. I would like to incorporate more of these scholarly sources into the article, and I ask if you would be willing to provide another source review once that has been done? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you expect this process of incorporating new sources to take? If it's just a few days, then this FAC can continue, but if it's going to take 2 weeks it's probably more appropriate to archive it at this point and renominate once complete. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: This can definitely be done within a few days. SatDis (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're done, and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 07:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related point on sourcing: I noticed that many of the sources have long page ranges, such as 66–82, 173–186, 225–241 etc. To improve verifiability, I try to keep all page ranges to 2 or 3 pages at most. According to previous discussions at WT:FAC, ranges longer than 10 pages should not be used. I would also provide a timestamp for where you can verify the information when citing a 20-minute long video. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have added some further scholarly sources to the article and removed the unreliable sources. I have separated the long page ranges as suggested by @Buidhe: above and have added these journal articles to the "Bibliography" section. I have read through some further articles but I want to note that they wouldn't all have importance on this article, and I only want to add sources that have a significant use. The Vanity Fair video also has a timestamp. Thank you for looking over the sources again, and I hope the referencing is now of a higher standard. SatDis (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some spot-checks later, but the only further concern I have here with reliability/sourcing depth is that I'm not sure that DVDizzy is reliable to necessarily be WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion as a review/opinion. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm: let me know and I can easily remove the DVDizzy source. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose, but would still suggest removing the DVDizzy source. Hog Farm Talk 06:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you! I have removed the unreliable source. SatDis (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by TheJoebro64[edit]

Lede:

Premise

My first batch of comments. I'm just focusing on prose so it shouldn't take me long to do a full analysis. More to come. JOEBRO64 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheJoebro64: Thanks for the detailed comments! I have taken on board all of your suggestions. SatDis (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for the ping—I've just been extremely busy lately. I'll have some time tomorrow so I'll post my remaining comments in the morning. JOEBRO64 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. @SatDis:, sorry for keeping you waiting so long! Once these comments have been addressed you've got my full support. JOEBRO64 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by FrB.TG[edit]

  • Apologies, but there is a specific reason for this difference, and I am quoting from the article Apostrophe and they are different noun forms.
  • Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound - "all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation" - this is for Cyrus's
  • Basic rule (plural nouns) - "When the noun is a normal plural, with an added "s", no extra "s" is added in the possessive - this is for producers'
Ah, yes. That toally makes sense.

There is some work to be done but I think it can all be done in a reasonable amount of time. FrB.TG (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments, I addressed all of the above. And I apologise for the amount of NBSP issues, as I was unaware of it. Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for the prompt response.

Support on prose, good work. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate some feedback on my FAC. Totally understandable if the subject does not interest you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

This article already has more than 3 supports, but it looks like we're still missing an image review, planned spot checks by @Hog Farm:, and the review that @Pamzeis: was discussing above. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informal spot checks I did came up clean, no copvio or source-text integrity noted in what I checked. Hog Farm Talk 06:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you!!! SatDis (talk)

Image review[edit]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

I know I am late to the party, but this passes the criteria for a featured article. It is well written and well sourced. Well done, @SatDis:! --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:41, 2 February 2022 (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