Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Futurama/archive1

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 not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

---

Futurama

previous FAC

Futurama seems to be a FA, it has fixed all the criteria from the last FA nom. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - several image issues. Image:Doop logo.png at least needs distinct fair-use rationales for each use, and probably is excessive as used here. I have questions about whether Image:Alien decoder.PNG can really be released into the public domain - either the font's creator or Fox would probably hold the rights to that font even if it's re-created or morphed around here (it'd still be a derivative work). Image:Logo 30th century fox.jpg and Image:Kleins-beer (futurama).jpg have no fair-use rationales and could probably both be removed without detracting from the article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to add fair use rationale as appropriate and I'll have a look at the inclusion of those pics, the discussion of the Fox Logo is uncited anyway so it might be better to remove that discussion and the associated pic. I'm wondering how you think the Alien decoder image should be dealt with, would it be more appropriate to list it with some other status or as a fair use? Stardust8212 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Alien decoder.PNG, the appropriate copyright tag is {{PD-font}}. Anomie 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I changed it. Stardust8212 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Image:Doop logo.png and Image:Kleins-beer (futurama).jpg have been removed from the article. A fair use rationale has been added to Image:Logo 30th century fox.jpg and Image:Alien decoder.PNG is now tagged as {{PD-font}} as suggested. Hope that helps. Stardust8212 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Greatly informative article! Although about the images: If... If the Alien Language decoder chart must be replaced, it can be replaced with a framegrab of just some random Alien Language text from the show, perhaps the letter from Leela's parents in "Leela's Homeworld". Just enough to satisfy for fair-use, to show a sample of the symbols. As for the others... The DOOP logo and the Earth flag are both justified, in my opinion, especially in their own respective articles. The Klein Bottles pic is informatory of the nerdy humour in the show, and the 30th Century FOX logo is most certainly an icon of the series. The only problem I really have at all with the article is that Bender is described as being 'alcoholic'. I believe it should be noted that Bender needs alcohol, or else he becomes the human equivalent of drunk. The word 'alcoholic' has rather different connotations. Other than that, fantastic article. Wish I had written more of it. - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see one {{fact}} tag so far.--Rmky87 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: There were actually two, both have been dealt with. Please let me know if you see any other issues. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Object Not enough inline citations. In the days where the standard is to reference most sentences, the fact that most paras are not referenced sinks this article. Stubby paras ('Robots', 'Sewer Mutants' (do they really deserve a section at all?)), and 'References to Futurama in popular culture' would look better in paragraph form, not a list.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I fully agree with your comments about the stubby paragraphs and I have merged them together and I will have a look at the pop culture section later. If you don't mind my asking, specifically which paragraphs do you feel require more citations? I would be more than happy to work on those issues. Stardust8212 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'References to Futurama in popular culture' has been paragraphified. - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At minimum, you want one citation per paragraph (or more if different sources were used), and for more controversial information, don't hesitate to give inline citations for individual sentences. For popculture, here are some good 'how to do it': Excel Saga (it's the oldest, and it certainly should have a few more citations by modern standards), Serial Experiments Lain (better, missing only a few) and a current FAC, Lupin III (which seems nearly perfect with regards to density of refs).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some have now been added, I will try to add any more as I notice a need. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose — This article had some good content but the presentation needs some improvement. Here are some suggestions:

• In the second opening paragraph try "In the United States, the series aired from March 28, 1999 to August 10, 2003 on CHANNEL, although its timeslot was regularly interrupted and pre-empted by sports events, and eventually went out of production."

Done Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Try getting rid of all the "List of .... in Futurama" in the "Cast and Characters" section. Instead try "See also: Recurring robot characters, recurring human characters, recurring alien characters..."

Update: I'm not quite sure how to do this within {{see also}} but I did move it to the bottom so it is hopefully less intrusive. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Cast and Characters" section needs to be introduced. For example, "The show revolves around the adventures of a cantankerous professor and the employees of his delivery company."
• The "Cast and Characters" list has quite a lot of text and could be trimmed or moved to a sub-article. Some of the details in the list are trivial and provide no real insight into the characters.

• I have trimmed the characters' excerpts (see here). I tried to get rid of non-essential points. --WillMak050389 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Galactic politics" is not that compelling. I have two possible solutions: remove the section altogether or incorporate it into the "Society and Culture" section.

Update: It has been merged and somewhat reduced. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Linguistics" section is interesting however the ask/axe talk may be a bit too much detail. Also it might work better if placed at the end of the "Setting" section.

Done Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Hallmarks" section is alright, but could use some trimming. Remember you don't need to describe every detail of the show in its article, it's okay to leave some stuff out.
• Incorporate the "Ratings" section with the "Broadcast" section and reduce the size of both.
• Always remember the audience of the article: The show is internationally syndicated so the audience may not always be in the United States. Also not all of the article's readers will be fans of the show.

Sorry, I'm not sure if this is referring to something specific or... Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't referencing a specific section, but some of the issues above (the characters one, the United States one) may stem from forgetting the wide audience the article might attract.

• The "Show Status" section might benefit from some trimming but this is not essential.

Completed some minor trimming here. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Futurama in other media" could be spun off into a separate article and briefly mentioned in this article.
• The "References to Futurama in popular culture" would work better before the "Awards" section.

Moved. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And the good stuff:

• Good opening paragraph.
• Good description of the setting.
• Good "Society and Culture" section.
• The "Humor" section is important, it was missing when I reviewed the article a year ago as a GAC.

Cedars 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful comments, I'm trying to address each of them, let us know if you notice any other issues which can be improved. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.