Jump to content

Talk:That's So Raven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 21 March 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:That's So Raven/Archive 1. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

That's So Raven 2

Is it really a spin-off? Never was it mentioned to be a spin off by any reliable sources. They all say it's a sequel. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Andrew Kaito: Raven's Home, a new TSR spinoff will air July 21, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.128.188.209 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on That's So Raven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Situations

Overview currently states "... when in deep situations." I'm not a native speaker. What does that mean? Can you replace it with something more intelligible for a large audience? Thanks.--95.222.168.66 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:That's So Raven/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article That's So Raven in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

— Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·
GA Review
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

The prose and text seems to be cluttered with unecessary inline citations. These inline citations are repeated in the paragraph even when it is the same source over and over again repeated. This makes it hard to read and interferes with the "flow" of the article. Some examples are: [1], [2], and [3]. Although not a official guideline, nor nessecary for GA status, I would suggest reading WP:REPCITE.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Seems to comply with lead section and words to watch . For example, in the lead section it states that That's So Raven ["enjoyed high viewership"], which could be interpreted as a weasel word, but is supported by evidence in the article and thus complies with words to watch.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. All citations comply.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Citations are from reliable sources, however seems very overused. For example, reference [[4]]was used 33 times. Whether this was because of repetitive inline citations (as discussed above), or not, if the prose information is being relied on only that source, that is going to be problematic (although it is most likely because of repetitive inline citations). [isn't the only source that is overused]. Please either eliminate unnessecary inline citations, or get more sources (in case you are using only those 2 sources as supporting evidence).
2c. it contains no original research. None seen.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. None seen.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes and is comprehensive enough.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. And gives enough coverage of negative aspects.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Seems stable and dosen't seem there is any problems on the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Rationales and terms are provided.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Relevant, as it has the logo for the article and a depiction of their caracters, and captions are mostly explanative and relevant.
7. Overall assessment. Since the problems listed above seems minor enough to be but on hold, i've changed my mind and has decided to put this on hold. :)

Response

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by SatDis (talk). Nominated by I'ma editor2022 (talk) at 15:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. I’m not sure why you made three hooks that say almost the exact thing instead of offering three different ones. They all look acceptable to me. Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that That's So Raven was the first time an original Disney Channel series would exceed 3 seasons, the first to reach 100 episodes for syndication, and was called the "most succesful series"? Source text: "The announcement marked the first time an original Disney Channel series would surpass three seasons and the first to reach the milestone of 100 episodes for syndication....Ross called the program the network's 'most successful series'." Source: https://archive.ph/yd5UE and https://archive.ph/kIPCN .
    • ALT4: ... that That's So Raven was the first time an original Disney Channel series would exceed 3 seasons and the first to reach 100 episodes for syndication? Source text: "The announcement marked the first time an original Disney Channel series would surpass three seasons and the first to reach the milestone of 100 episodes for syndication." Source: https://archive.ph/yd5UE and https://archive.ph/kIPCN .

Improved to Good Article status by SatDis (talk). Nominated by I'ma editor2022 (talk) at 15:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC). <!-[reply]

ALT5: ... that Raven-Symoné originally played the best friend in the pilot for That's So Raven, but the series was re-tooled to star her following positive reception from test audiences and producers?
ALT6: ... that when Raven-Symoné played the lead role in the series That's So Raven, she was reported to be Disney's first female African American star?
ALT7: ... that Raven-Symoné, who played the lead role in the series That's So Raven, became a producer for its fourth season at the age of 19?
There's probably more hook ideas in the article (and I think there could be a better way to reword ALT4), but after a quick look at the article, these caught my attention. Courtesy ping to reviewers/commenters @Thriley, Pamzeis, and Kingoflettuce: and nominator I'ma editor2022. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingoflettuce: @Narutolovehinata5: @Thriley: @Pamzeis:: It seems like I may have made an mistake. I incorrectly labeled them as Alt 3 and Alt 4, as it appears. I have now labelled the actual new DYK. If there appears to be a problem whith the new one pls let me know! I'm also sorry for the confusion! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'ma editor2022, I've removed your old and new headers, since they completely confuse things on the main nominations page, where this is transcluded, and also made things confusing here. We like to keep all hooks (and their original labels) for historical purposes. I've restored the original ALT3 and ALT4 labels to your new hooks, and renumbered Narutolovehinata5's hooks from ALT4 through ALT6 to ALT5 through ALT7, since you'd already created an ALT4 and it would be confusing to have two different hooks with that label. I did strike the original three hooks to reflect that they're no longer under consideration. Hopefully, one of the reviewers will soon return to check on the five new hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think ALT 5,6, and 7 look good. Good work everyone! Thriley (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT7 to T:DYK/P2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:That%27s_So_Raven&oldid=1078375622"