Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inspector Gadget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Inspector Gadget

This article has been through massive rewrites and reformatting. It has also been peer reviewed and all suggestions have been considered and applied accordingly. Its a good informative article full of information unique to Wikipedia. --The_stuart 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Object the lead section mentions that this article pertains only to the animated series, but doesn't direct the interested reader to articles about either of the two films or anything else about the characters. slambo 20:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) The article is too list-heavy; there is not enough straight prose to offset these lists. 2) Cite your sources in a References section. 3) I'd like to see more on the series' creation and development; as it is, this information is rather sparse near the end of the article (it should be the first section after the header). 4) the lead section does not fully describe the contents of the article. slambo 20:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I agree with Slambo. Most of the lists should be reformatted into prose. A comprehensive discussion of the animated series should probably discuss various spinoff adaptations, especially the live-action movies which many people are familiar with. Regarding media - 1) is it possible to get a clip of the theme song?, and 2) is it possible to clean up the screencapture images? They seem somewhat dark and not at all sharp. Slambo's comments regarding references, lead section and others also need to be addressed. - Bantman 21:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review Don't restrict yourself solely to the animated series; as was said above, the two movies should also be explained here. I strongly suggest you read other TV series articles, have a look at how they structure their articles, and base this one around those. --JB Adder | Talk 23:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, needs some brush-ups. Like The Strangerhood, there are too many lists. Although somebody did work hard on this, it does not seem fit to be considered an excellent or featured article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, the article is made almost entirely of lists. Phoenix2 22:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Despite possible problems mentioned by the above users, the article itself is very well written with interesting pictures provided. Deryck C. 09:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)