Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homestar Runner/archive2

Homestar Runner

This article is about the Flash toon, in which has created such a fan base that there are people who would give their time just to make fanstuff or transcribe the toons.

Support: I believe its a great article.--H*bad 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a good article that meets the featured article criteria in my opinion. —Mr. Strong Bad/_talk 17:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Most of the article is unreferenced, more footnotes required, see WP:FOOTNOTE. Last few sections look like afterthoughts and are way too short (Popularity, Awards, Merchandise). — Wackymacs 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm all for it! We all love Homestar!--rFalcon 10:16, 12 June 2006 (PST)
- Loving Homestar is not a reason for supporting the article, please look at the FA criteria. — Wackymacs 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not referenced enough for FA, books have been published with sections on the subject, none have been mentioned. Popularity and Merchandise sections could be expanded. Lincher 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. For the reasons listed above. Phillip M. 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homestar Runner/archive1. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The Chapman brothers have created a very large collection of collectable merchandise. For more merchandise for Homestar Runner see the store." In it's current form, this statement looks like blatent advertisement. For future reference, this should be removed.--P-Chan 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed Judgesurreal777 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A mighty fine article. --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 18:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not quite ready yet. Needs to be made better (I guess I better help do that) and will try nominating again later. —BazookaJoe 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think it sums up Homestar Runner in a nutshell. Nothing needs more info. If you want more info, go to Hrwiki. This is Wikipedia, not that. Seriously630 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6 inline citations for an article that long? And on a web-based subject to boot (making references easier to find, even sitting at a computer)? No way. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept This article has more than enough information about the website for it to be a featured article. Red Director 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept This is a well-written article about a well-known and popular pop culture phenomenon. THis is exactly what Wikipedia is about. —BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly depressing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a fine article, but the last parts of it need work. (The "TMBG music videos" looks useless, and should be written a different way, or put somewhere else on the article) Oh, and I think some people are voting for it because the Homestar Runner Fanstuff Wiki had a thing that said to help vote for this article about a couple hours ago. PurpleKoopa 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The coverage of what the site contains is fairly comprehensive, but the following aspects, in my opinion, need work:
- Criterion 2a: A good copyedit would help. Series titles (such as Teen Girl Squad) need to be italicized. There are some problems with referents ("By focusing on Internet distribution, the animated series has been able to reach a larger audience than they would otherwise have had access to." — who's "they"?). This is a run-on sentence: "Homestar was once called The Homestar Runner, now only in the Old Timey cartoons, but the title has since changed to Homestar Runner."
- Criterion 2b: Some sections, particularly later in the article, are too short. Certainly more can be said about the site's popularity and critical reception. Did you know, for example, that Rooster Teeth Productions has cited H*R as inspiration for their own series Red vs Blue? I would guess that they're not the only ones.
- Criterion 2c: Key assertions and analysis aren't supported by citations. Is the series really absurdist? Absurdism isn't about absurd situations in general; it's about the pointlessness of life. Also, the article might want to incorporate any germane information from the commentary tracks on the DVD.
- Criterion 2d: Has there been any negative criticism of the site at all?
- Criterion 3a: The lead seems to go into a bit too much detail. I wouldn't introduce all of the characters in the lead, just the most important ones (Homestar Runner, Strong Bad, etc., but definitely not the Poopsmith or Homsar.) Also, the lead should probably make some mention of the physical media on which Homestar Runner has been released, since that's significant for a series primarily distributed via Internet.
- Criterion 4: Image:Puppet Jam 6.JPG doesn't look like it's from a computer or video game.
  - Re. Criterion 3a: According to the creators of Homestar Runner, every character on the character page of the website is a "main character." —BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even so, don't you think that mentioning all of them in lead is too much? — TKD::Talk 10:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that the featured article candidacy is not a vote. — TKD::Talk 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. It can be made to be a fine article, but at this point, it is definitely not FA material. Rogue Leader 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. As much as I'd like to see it featured, it simply is not ready. Qermaq 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The referencing in totally inadequate, and many sections are way too short, especially toward the end of the article. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- Image:SB Flagrant System Error.png needs a fair use rationale. Jkelly 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a great site, and the artical is pretty good too. Teh Pampas Cat 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; needs more references and citations. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Expansion and better organisation is needed. I suppose I'll help with it (after I finish project). --JCasto 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: This article may need changes to it's basic structure.
- The lead is not representative of the rest of the article, as it introduces way too much information that is not expanded upon again (characters, popularity with college students and the UK) and does not include much of the content in the article (Other Sub-Cartoons takes up almost half the article). The lead should act as an introduction to the content in the article and should be rewritten as such.
- If all the characters are important enough to mention in the Lead, why not have a section for them in the article? (Just one or two sentences for each of the major ones, so people aren't left in the dark.)
- This article should have a more out-world perspective. It does a bit of this with the last 4 sections (Popularity, Awards, They Might be Giants, and Merchandise), but these sections seem to be more of an afterthought. They should be expanded. If this is such a popular website, then why is it is so popular? (Source properly of course).
- Some of the sub-cartoon sections are rather small. One suggestion is to merge some of them together as reoccuring themes.

That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: I am a fan of H*R, but the article is lacking too much to be Featured. Perhaps information from The Homestarrunner Wiki can help improve the article. --Chris 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's a great toon and everyone loves it.

Comment: Just a reminder, this is a page for Nominating the article and not the series itself. --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Not enough references. Andjam 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]