Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

The article has changed significantly since it was first nominated, so many of the comments in the old nom are no longer applicable. Nomination restarted. Raul654 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Weak Object The Asian characters in Elements needs rationale, but because those characters can be depicted using free images (or just use the Chinese text right next to the image) I'm not sure you can create a rationale. Issues with the Characters section seen in Talk needs to be resolved. I mentioned on the Talk page that there are more common ways to seperate the paragraphs in the character section. Issues from earlier are resolved in my opinion. Medvedenko 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Added rationale to Asian characters. Characters section issues are coming to an end very soon. Horizontal lines removed from Characters section. 71.247.49.111 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  That rationale does not work. The copyright tag indicates those symbols are taken from the show. If thats the case which it certainly looks like, then you have to change the rationale. (If it was not copyrighted, you wouldn't need to add rationale) Medvedenko 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Changed rational to a more appropriate explanation. The Placebo Effect 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  CommentCharacters images have fair use rational, and Charchter section no longer has a debate and is refrenced. The Placebo Effect 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Unformatted, blue link URLs in the refs - pls fix and check all refs. Section headings don't conform to WP:MSH - how do these articles get this far into FAC without having the basics checked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Fixed headings. Someone else fixed the references. Parent5446 ^{(Murder me for my actions.)} 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Must be my eyesight, then :-) A link like http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/arts/television/12nick.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&8dpc&oref=slogin gives us no way to track down the information. Since the link goes nowhere, we have no author, no article title, and no publication date - we only know that something sometime was printed in the New York Times. This is an example of why complete bibliographic info is needed. If we register at the NYT, we find out the ref should be:

  Wyatt, Edward. SpongeBob SquareProfits: Nickelodeon Swears by Cartoons. The New York Times (December 12, 2006).

  Pls check the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Sorry, I did not know what you meant for a second. I went I found the sources and fixed the citations. I do not know who put those unformatted citations there, they were put in recently. Parent5446 ^{(Murder me for my actions.)} 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Refs look better now. There are three sections which are nothing but a heading and a Main article in Characters. Besides being unsightly, this isn't the way Summary style is used - the main template is used when information from a daughter article is summarized back to the main article, yet there is no information summarized back here. Maybe the sections can be eliminated, and the lists incorporated into the prose under a general character heading, or as a See also template under the general character heading, but there's no reason to have a section with no content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Working on fixing that, by making one main article (List of...) to cover the whole section. FrozenPurpleCube 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Back for another look - almost there.
  • "Overview" is not an encyclopedic section heading - can you come up with something else?
  • Feature Film Adaptation section heading violated WP:MSH - I removed caps. It only has one sentence: should not be a separate section.
  • Something is goofed up in the formatting of this reference ^ . (2006-09-19). Book 1: Water, Box Set [DVD].
  • Is the bolding necessary in the footnotes? I think it's coming from the parameter, serieslink = Avatar: The Last Airbender , which shouldn't be necessary in its own article.
  • I found some minor ce errors - refs run right into the start of the next sentence, with no space, so please run through the text again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed most of those. The Placebo Effect 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Am I the only one who looks at this page and has also seen the big argument over the "Cycle of learning Bending"? The section with the {{dubious}} tag is here. I don't really follow this show, so I don't know which side to take. The last comment dates from December 25, 2006.--Rmky87 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment That problem has already been solved (mostly). It was just that nobody changed it. According to the conversation, nobody objected to the idea that the cycle was classified as a legend and, when the situation call for it, it can be broken. Parent5446 ^{(Murder me for my actions.)} 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be heavily weighted towards in-universe sort of description--there's extensive sections on premise, plot, and characters, none of which have any secondary sources. This is bothersome, especially since there's a lot of analytic description of character traits and such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Episode that provide character traits are referenced now. The Placebo Effect 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment All of the objections havee been met. Also, do the votes from the old nomination count in this one or not? The Placebo Effect 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment No. So you might want to ask people who voted last time to come back for this one on their talk pages. --PresN 16:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think this is there now, with all the recent improvements. Jay32183 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I am an editor of this article but it has improved drastically and now definitely deserves to be featured. -Dylan0513 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object: Good article, but a couple of quibbles. Why is American wikilinked in the lead? Make sure there are no common, irrelevant wikilinks in the article. Also, please merge that annoying two sentence paragraph in the lead. The episodes section is unnecessary: those few sentences could go in the lead or somewhere else, and the template already has a link to the episode list. Plus, why is there no critical reaction listed, even though the lead says "Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics,[2]"?--Dark Kubrick 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment We've been told to wikilink a lot of that crap by other voters. Sentences have been merged. The episodes thing is on other FA TV shows so I'm not getting rid of it. And to tell you the truth, we've searched far and wide to find critical reactions and honestly, there aren't any out there that we can find. No one writes critical reactions to a Nickelodeon cartoon. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  I understand most of your points, but I still see no reason for the "Episodes" section. It's a two-sentence section that can easily be moved somewhere else. Whether it's on the other FAs is irrelevant; what exactly does it add here?--Dark Kubrick 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  TV shows need a link to thier episodes. however, we didn't want a section that just says "see X" as per an FA request previously, so we added a small line of text that describes what will be found on that link, which is 40 episodes through 2 seasons. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  That sort of information is noted by the infobox and at least one other line. Since it's media, I merged it into the media paragraph and the book/chapter thing into the header. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think the article is now worthy of being a featured article.Tremewanbill 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article has come a long way and is now just about up to FA quality. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I watch the show - damn it. Good article and I have used it often for information. --Blacksun 12:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for the support, but your opinion on the subject matter itself doesn't help here, we need information on the articles flaws or reasons why it's ready for FA status. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Article is subject to edit-warring and POV-pushing. --SunStar Net^talk 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Would you care to explain? The article is stable right now when the show isn't aired and we do a good job of keeping it neutral. The Placebo Effect 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Name me an article that isn't subject to warring and POV and I'll show you an article that isn't edited. Why don't you come back at the start of season 3 and see how the Wikiproject takes care of these articles stability. It's stressful. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My mistake. The comment wasn't intended for this article but another Featured candidate.--SunStar Net^talk 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, surprisingly enough. I expected fancruft but found an engaging article - now I'd like to see the show! :) Haukur 12:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --SonicChao ^talk 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.