Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move discussion in progress

Resolved

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Mask (TV special) → The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode) – This is the TV pilot movie/premiere episode of the Goosebumps (TV series), as given on List of Goosebumps episodes#Season 1 (1995–96). Per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles, it should use the series title as disambiguation along with "episode" to distinguish from the Goosebumps book of the same name. Additionally, WP:NCTV does not recommend use of "(TV special)" in any case. -- Netoholic @ 09:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Both "Goosebumps episode" and "TV special" are used by reliable sources to describe it. Since Goosebumps episode is more consistent with the guidelines, I support using it here. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NCTV, and general logic (a pilot is not a TV special; someone doesn't know their media terminology).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A TV pilot could be considered a TV special, depending on the definition of a TV special you use. The Haunted Mask was marketed by Fox as a special, presumably because it aired during a time slot that is normally reserved for other programming. There are also a handful of sources that refer to it as a special (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). That does bring up a good point though, the fact that some would not consider this to be a special is a good reason to consider changing the title of the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you picked up the key word there "marketed". Television specials are an amorphous collection mostly because its a marketing term, not a defined format or genre. In this case, its an episode marketed as a TV special much like how you can have a film like The Wizard of Oz marketed as a special also. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Any point I raise is open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    These are my edits. Any of them can be revised/reverted if you do not like them.
    I like them. My only change was correcting a minor typo. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, gosh. Thanks for catching that... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The source cited (#8) for the VHS release date only says the VHS "made its home video debut last week". I suggest adding source #9 to this sentence as well, since it gives the specific date.
    Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "in 1994, Margaret Loesch, formerly the CEO of Fox Kids," - according to her article, she was still the CEO in 1994. I suggest revising this to "then-CEO", "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time", or some other wording that indicates she wasn't a former CEO in 1994.
    Changed to "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time". Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no cocnern
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    no concern
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    no concern. AGF for the print/subscription sources.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I remember the initial broadcast being during primetime, but that may have been a local decision. This detail isn't necessary to pass GA, but it might be something to look into if you plan to improve the article further.
    Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concern
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    no concern
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    There are a few points under 1A that I don't feel comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one looks pretty good. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article. I made the relevant changes. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good here. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

A user keeps removing the image of the VHS without explaining why, so I thought I would start a discussion. MOS:TVIMAGE says that an image can be used for an individual episode article if a home media cover is available for the episode. This is certainly the case here. Not to mention the VHS is discussed in the article as well. I think the image should be kept. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Haunted_Mask_(Goosebumps_episode)"