Wikipedia:Peer review/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive7

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has had a recently failed FAC nomination due to lack of engagement and I would still like to get it to FA-status. All feedback welcome.

Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Hi Pamzeis, I am sorry that the article was archived after we worked together on the PR. I suggest that you seek out a mentor at WP:FAM, and find someone who has experience working in pop culture. You can also ask editors on their talk pages to comment here: since this is a PR you can seek help from specific editors without worries that you are canvassing for FAC support. I also encourage you to continue reviewing at FAC so that you can get ideas on how to make your article better. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Commends by Laser brain

I will try to look at this before it goes back to FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Courtesy ping. Pamzeis (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still reading through, but I've encountered at least one present tense phrase that may have been added to the article while the show was still in production: "Libman stated she is allowed be as exaggerated as she wants without the animators stopping her". The article should be scanned and adjusted for past tense. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done: I think I caught them all.
• Can we find a better source than BusinessWeek for our opening statement of the central themes of the show? I'd prefer something geared toward media journalism or academic study. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Replaced

I think I've resolved all your comments, Laser brain. Let me know if you have any others or I missed anything. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wizzito

• I suggest that the lead section, "Premise", "Cast and characters", "Casting and voice acting", "Fandom", "Other media", and "Fifth generation" be expanded a bit, if possible.
  • Can you be more specific? The lead section is already three paragraphs, which is acceptable per MOS:LEADLENGTH; the premise covers the basic, well, premise of the show and most of the series is stand-alone and any season arcs or stuff like that can be covered in season-specific articles; I have been unable to find any more encyclopaedic information from reliable sources on casting and voice acting; the fandom already has its own article which is longer than this one so if anyone wants to read about it they can go to the other article; I'm hesitant about expanding #Other media because, since there are so many notable spin-offs, etc., it could risk getting bloated; with the fifth generation, the only part that is relevant to this is that it's set in the same universe. I've added a bit but please note there's not much media at the moment, only a film and a bunch of toys, and that this generation of the franchise only started earlier this year.
• Those sentences in "Cast and characters" could use some periods at the end, and possibly some wikilinks for context...
  • ...why? There are no full sentences and everything relevant is already linked in #Premise
• "Critical reception" could also use some wikilinks for context.
  • I don't really know what can be linked. Everything that isn't either already has been or doesn't need to be, IMO.
• Is iTunes a reliable source, as seen in source 104?
  • It's a WP:PRIMARY source; we're using iTunes to reference that fact that Friendship Is Magic is on iTunes

wizzito | say hello! 22:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wizzito. I have responded to the above. Thank you for your comments and please feel free to leave any more. Pamzeis (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Eh, it's hard for me to explain about what exactly I think needs improving without using a lot of words. I retract my comments about the lengths of certain sections, though. wizzito | say hello! 04:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Kavyansh.Singh

As promised, I am here to review. Just so you know, this will be a completely non-expert review. Let me know if I am wrong somewhere.

• Reference order:
  • The 90-minute finale was broadcast on October 12, 2019. — Ref#101 should be before Ref#102 (in ascending order)
    • I've just removed 101 because it's unnecessary
  • The References of the table (Awards and nominations) should be center aligned.
    •  Done
• Duplicate links:
  • Emily VanDerWerff is linked twice in the prose.
    •  Fixed
  • The A.V. Club is also linked twice in the prose.
    •  Fixed
• General suggestions (these are just suggestions, feel free to ignore any which you don't find useful)
  • The company admired his underscore and selected him for the position. — We are saying this in Wikipedia's voice. Better to attribute it like "According to ABC, the company admired his underscore and selected him for the position."
    • I don't think this constitutes to a WP:VOICE issue since it's a fact. To me, it's basically like saying X supported Y or A denied allegations of B
  • In an interview with New York Magazine — I don't think Magazine should also be italicized and 'M' should be capitalized. Better as "New York magazine"
    •  Done
  • "still some frustration with" being unable to bring some of her ideas to screen — Ending the quote with 'with' reads odd to me. Better as " "still some frustration" with being unable to bring some of her ideas to screen"
    •  Done
  • A study by Bachelor of Arts Christian Valiente and Doctor of Philosophy Xeno Rasmusson, — Is mentioning qualification important?
    • No;  Removed
  • The characters, messages, and morals have been lauded as "super cool", relatable, "super cool", inspiring, positive, and enjoyable — Why are "super cool" and "super cool" in quotes, while relatable and inspiring not?
    • "Super cool" and "absolutely genuine" (not super cool twice) are quotes and the others not per MOS:QUOTEPOV as quoting one-word words may imply doubt and, also, some are paraphrased
  • The full two-part third-season premiere, "The Crystal Empire", was viewed by 601,000 people aged 2 and marked the third consecutive year of growth in season premieres. — 'viewed by 601,000 people', or 'viewed by approximately 601,000 people'?
    • The latter (which I've implemented)
  • US$650 million v. one billion USD (emphasis mine at both instances) — consistency needed
    •  Fixed

I hope that helps! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Responded to the above Pamzeis (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

I must have overlooked getting into this, sorry for the delay. Here's what I've picked up in my review. Otherwise the article is in pretty good shape IMO.

• the series aired on The Hub (which was renamed Discovery Family on October 13, 2014) -- it aired on “Discovery Family (formerly The Hub)”, putting another date takes away the focus on its neighbor sentence about the show’s airing and is rather irrelevant in the lead. The rebranding of The Hub is already tackled in it’s on page.
  •  Done
• The series became a success; it was one of the highest-rated productions in The Hub's broadcast history. -- The series became one of the highest-rated productions in The Hub's broadcast history.
  •  Done
• but expanded to 4 million per month by the end of the first season – and further increased to 4 million
  •  Done
• In the Ratings section, “viewership” could use some alternate terms (e.g. audience, etc), to avoid being overused/redundant.
  •  Attempted. Let me know if it's sufficient

Hope this helps! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Pseud 14. I have responded to the above. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)