Muppet Wiki

Muppet Wiki:Quality article nominations archive 03

Talk0
26,845pages on
this wiki

Archive of discussions from Muppet Wiki:Quality article nominations.

Approved

Is Cookie Monster now the Veggie Monster?

  • Nomination: This article's come a long a way, and I think we've built it up really well. Lots of pictures and sources. —Scott (talk) 19:13, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree! It's funny that this issue keeps coming up as if it's new all the time. We're doing important work here. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 19:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: We must protect our precious cookies! --Justin 20:02, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a thought, though. I still support it as a quality article, but can anything be added to this paragraph, or could the sentence possibly be merged with another paragraph, as it sort of stands out in an odd way, and doesn't really say a whole lot. "Snopes.com, a popular website that debunks "urban legends", posted an article on the Cookie Monster rumor in March 2007." --Justin 20:04, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for removing that sentence and adding the link at the bottom. Now it has my full support, 100%. --Justin 02:39, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I love this page, too! I had no idea people were asking him to change his diet as far back as 1972! -- Ken (talk) 04:43, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I think its a great article, and I'm sure it will become one of our most researched ones every time someone stirs up the rumor mill again. -- Nate (talk) 15:34, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Time travel

  • Nomination: This is a very fun, interesting, well-written and comprehensive collection of time travel in the Muppet universe. Add to that a nice look at time travel in productions connected to the Muppets. Scott put a lot of thought into this page, and so I think it should receive a Fred. --Justin 14:08, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Justin beat me to the nomination. I think its a great article, and just the type we can have fun with here. -- Nate (talk) 14:29, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Such a fun article! And with lots of room for growth. It's already becoming one of my faves. — Joe (talk) 20:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • SupportScott (talk) 04:42, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Fun article; nice work! — Julian (talk) 13:33, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


Baseball

  • Nomination: After looking over the article again today, and spring training right around the corner, I'd like to nominate the article. It's a very comprehensive listing of baseball in the muppet universe. From Baseball Players who have appeared with the Muppets, examples of the game being played, references to sports teams, merchandise related to baseball, and storylines based around the game, its just a very fun, interesting, and informative read. -- Nate (talk) 18:08, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that it looks pretty darn good, but there's still a few images missing from the Baseball Players gallery at the bottom, as well as a few red links throughout. Once those are filled in, I'd support it. --Justin 18:25, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed the redlinks. One was for Basketball, which is an article I've not tackled yet but will be forthcoming, the other was an episode link that Enrique added, which is for an article that I'm sure he will be adding in the future. There are two baseball players we don't have pictures of, and they are from episodes from the 1970's which I'm sure we will add at some point. In the meantime, a "photo not available" placecard is in the gallery for their spot. Not something that I think detracts from the article. -- Nate (talk) 18:38, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's a pretty amazing article. I know you already trimmed some from the lead-in, but there's still no Muppet content above the fold. If we want to keep that stuff for the connections, can we move it further down in the article? —Scott (talk) 01:03, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, it's a great article, but I agree with Scott, some Muppet stuff higher would help. Maybe use an approach closer to China and Ice cream, where it's more integrated, rather then "Here's background with a lot of connected links, and here's a list." I'll try to tackle it later, but some amusing lines, describing the Muppets' baseball game with the Fabulous Baseball Diamond in The Great Muppet Caper. Also, right now all the images on the side collide with the player gallery. I'd say either jettison some of those (the Robin Williams pic for example isn't that exciting or amusing) or convert to a gallery of its own before the players list (which is really more amusing and interesting than the random pictures of characters in baseball caps or gloves). While some of the stuff may be better as dry lists, a lot of the character stuff can be reworked and moved up in the article. Combine a lot of the "Elmo and baseball" or "Big Bird and baseball" stuff into a more narrative form (even working it within the history of baseball you already have, perhaps) since a lot of those simple sentences seem to blend together after awhile and some are kind of bland. I *really* like this passage, though: "Baby Bear asks Telly to play baseball, and he convinces Baby Bear to let Freddy play baseball with them. The doll's baseball skills prove to be sorely lacking in episode 4121." Clearer subheadings might help too (for the books and animated stuff which feels kind of just jammed in right now).
I'm too tired to do much today. You've done a great job, Nate, and I think it's really *close* to quality, since it's exhaustive and impeccably thorough so all the material is there. It's just some of that material, both visual and written, could use some sprucing up (which if we pitch in, I'm sure it can be done within the nomination period). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:21, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just chiming in to agree with pretty much everybody. :) It has the makings of a Quality article, but needs some more work to get Muppet content higher. Nate and I talked about cutting down the intro on Talk:Baseball in December, and he cut it from five paragraphs to three. I understand the appeal of having lots of links to surprising places, but I think it's better to focus on the baseball-related links (Casey at the Bat, players and stadiums, Who's on First). We can take out all the sentences that are just there to add non-related links (Canada, Australia, Olympic Games, Time magazine). I took a pass at a completely ruthless trim; we can see how it looks. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 11:48, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmmmm, without the extra info that was removed, now there's a new problem. At least in my browser, the baseball players gallery is pushed really far away from its heading.--Justin 14:36, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oops, sorry; that was my bad. I took out a couple of pictures; it lines up now. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 16:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Since the changes, I'm now in support of this article for Quality status. Nice job! —Scott (talk) 20:00, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree, I think it's fantastic! -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 00:40, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --Justin 00:26, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Santa Claus

  • Nomination: This article was nominated back in 2007, and I think it has progressed even further now. Nice summeries of all appearances of Santa, representations of Santa by the Muppets, print appearances, and connections. -- Nate (talk) 21:13, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree; I think it's a fantastic page. It's not a deep page as far as text goes, but the breadth of references and abundance of pictures makes it really fun and definitely worth reading and highlighting. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 22:13, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree. It deserves to be a quality article. And for some reason I thought it already was. --Minor muppetz 22:24, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Ditto all the above. Michael, it was nominated way back, as Nate noted, but Danny wanted more text. The fact that it was nominated in July, and thus the Christmas spirit factor didn't enter into it, was likely part of it as well. :) -- Andrew Leal (talk)

Mickey Mouse

  • Nominate: A study of how the mouse and the frog have interacted and relate to each other, and where they intersect, with some choice images. One of the best pages we have right now for a celebrity, cartoon character, and point of reference. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: A agree with everything the nominator said. --Minor muppetz 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree also. It is a great article on this great cartoon character. --Rocket Stevo 18:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm quite proud of our work on this one. A fun, informative and extensive list of Mickey's relationship with the Muppets. —Scott (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, wow. It's really grown since I last read it. Who knew there were so many connections? -- Zanimum 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Monsterpiece Theater

  • Nominate: I thought this page is quality since this page has all the pictures of all the known sketches and the description of each sketch is written well. Its quality is almost similar to Sesame Street News Flash, but for this one, we have all the pictures of all the Monsterpiece sketches that we know and I think it was a hard work page that most of the people on the Wikia helped contribute together on. Anyone agrees or disagrees? -- Rocket Stevo 04:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment and Support: Great idea! Good thinking. Should we just wait until we upload Seasons 15-32! Webkinz Mania 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, upload seasons 15-32? -- Zanimum 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree. And they all also say what the sketch titles are based on. --Minor muppetz 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Ditto. Thorough and informative -- Andrew Leal (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, very complete. -- Zanimum 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinball Number Count

Nominated Jan. 16th, closes on Jan. 31st

  • Nominate: I cleaned it up (although it does need some more—there are still lots of spelling and usage errors), added the solos for each segment, and added the wallpaper, so I think it deserves a nomination. What do you think? Peace —MuzikJunky 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-researched, with little known info about one of Sesame Street's best known memories. --MuppetVJ 07:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: It truly is one of Sesame Street's best-known memories. It would be great if an image for the 8 sketch could be included (even if none of us have a copy, one of us could at least include a still of the number 8 from one of the counting sequences used in all these segments), but otherwise it's a good page. --Minor muppetz 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Although #8 needs some kind of picture. -- Brad D. (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Last I checked, a still from #8 was added. Peace. —MuzikJunky 07:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Sesame Street News Flash

Nominated Dec. 20th, vote closes Jan. 3rd

  • Nominate: This page now has over 80 entries, which is more than anyone can remember. --MuppetVJ 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: This page is very detailed, and I think that there are more individual news segments than any other recurring Sesame Street sketch. --Minor muppetz 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Once again, we've compiled the most comprehensive list on the web. I look forward to hunting down the remaining screenshots for the known sketches, and unearthing those we haven't filed yet. Until then, this is still an example of some of our best collaborative efforts. —Scott (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Wow! I never knew there were that many! This gets my vote! -- Ken (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I still support my vote, but there is something that I am concerned about, and don't know if I should put "citation needed" tags there, or reword this part, or what. But it says on the article that the segments began in 1971. I've read on various message boards for years that these segments were first shown in the third season, but the earliest known appearance of any of these skits is a season four episode. Sure, it's possible that none of the papers found at the CTW Archives mention Newsflash sketches in the third season episodes (especially since they don't list every sketch in every episode, and since only half of the seasons episodes have info found there), and only two fourth season episodes are listed here (and only one fifth season episode is listed). Quite a few fans seem to think that the Rupunzel sketch was the first one (and I am one of them, despite not having any official source), and Old School: Volume 1 includes that sketch, listed as a "season four classic cut". Unless the people compiling the bonus skits made a mistake, that would either mean that these skits weren't first shown in the third season, or that the Rupunzel skit wasn't the first one. Also, it's said that "The Tortose and the Hare" was a prototype for these segments, but again with no source (and the earleist known appearance is a season six episode). Unless we can find a source, we should probably change this paragraph or something.--Minor muppetz 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ice cream

Nominated Nov. 21st, vote closes Dec. 5th

  • Nominate: A summary of all things ice cream. The picture of Zoe dropping ice cream on Telly's head alone is a reason to give this Quality status. -- Danny (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Amazing work, especially in such a short amount of time. Everyone likes ice cream. —Scott (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: No matter who they be. I did some minor tweaks, but despite Mark's stated concerns, I agree that it's already a quality article (which doesn't mean it can't still be improved little by little, but as stands, it's an excellent and amusing read and a thorough overview of the topic as related to the Muppet universe). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I just went back and reread the article, and it turns out most of my unhappiness was minor, and the vast majority has been tweaked enough by others that it doesn't bug me any more. I made two little minor changes, and now I'm a lot happier with the page. Thanks to all for the feedback and such. Stay tuned for balloons. -- Mark (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Muppet*Vision 3D

Nominated on November 2, vote closes November 16

  • Nominate -- Brad D. (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Another great article that I recently thought was good enough to be a quality article. Very detailed in the description. And one of the Muppets' best productions that has never been released on video or DVD. --Minor muppetz 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I worked quite a bit on this article a ways back, so I may be tooting my own horn, but I think it's a very comprehensive article, especially in its comparisons of the East Coast and West Coast versions. I think that the movie "synopsis" itself may be a bit overdetailed, in fact. I may take a look at reigning that in a bit. -- Peter (talk)
  • Support: I know I'm late to the party (I always forget to look at this page), but this article appears comprehensive. -- Mark (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Big Bad Wolf

Nominated on October 18, vote closes November 8

  • Nominate: This is one of those articles that's been built slowly, by a lot of different contributors. Lots of people added little bits of information, which have all come together into a complete biography of the character -- including information on appearances, performers and puppet design. It could actually use some more organizational work -- it would be nice to reorganize it a bit and split into subheadings, to help break up the text -- but I'm hoping that this nomination will motivate somebody to do that. But it's a good example of wiki collaboration making a heap of facts into an interesting page, and with a little bit more love, I think it will be one of our best. -- Danny (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It would be great if such minor characters could get awarded quality articles. --Minor muppetz 14:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Yeah, I dig it. I think a clearer definition can be made of the fact that the role of the BBW is played by many different "actors" depending on how he's needed. But it's looking good and isn't exempt from being made even better. —Scott (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Ditto. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would just like to point out that this vote closes on November 8, and it's already past that date. I don't know if poeple just forgot about this or what. But it looks like it should be awarded now. --Minor muppetz 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Global Grover

Nominated on October 25, vote closes November 8

  • Nominate: A few weeks ago, I expanded this to the sketches format, broke out the DVD collection and verified a complete list of segments. Some of the entries could use a little extra in terms of a description, but what they've got now is pretty solid. The leader text is comprehensive, well sourced and informative. The list of segments is complete, and it's a worthy subject for Quality status. —Scott (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree. I was just looking at this page a week ago thinking that it would make a good quality article. And I think I've read on some people's talk pages that the sketch listing is complete. How many other recurring Sesame Street sketch pages include info on every individual sketch? --Minor muppetz 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Yeah, this is a great article. The pictures look fantastic, and it's great information. I like that the opening text has a lot of references. -- Danny (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looks great! The only thing I see missing, in order to really cover the entire topic, would be info on where it airs as a stand alone show. The international aspect is interesting, but could use a little more info. However, I will likely change my vote to "support" before voting closes anyway. And I too like all the references. -- Brad D. (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think a list of countries in which it airs is relevant. We'd never be able to track down all of them, so it would always be incomplete. I think it's enough that we know from press information that Sesame Workshop has distributed them internationally. —Scott (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment: Ditto what Scott had said. There's Poland, for one, and it seems it airs as a stand alone in some English-speaking nations (England, Australia, etc.), but I'd rather have just the current note than an incomplete list. Elmo's World likewise airs as a stand-alone all over, but while we have seperate pages for the known dubs, it's currently not practical to list every country where it airs as such. In general, in both cases, it seems to apply to most countries, most of which don't have the more regimented format of the more recent Sesame Street seasons. If at some point a full list comes along, it can be added, and anything else that's discovered. But as stands, it's already a quality article. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment: I agree it isn't required or super significant information here - if it was simply a short list of half a dozen or so countries (which is sounds like it isn't) it would be nice to have it, but if it's a long (and constantly evolving) list then it doesn't make sense (and an incomplete list is silly too). However some more information (even like a number range of countries) to show how wide-spread the stand-alone is would be nice (not necessary, but nice), however Sesame Workshop doesn't seem to make that information readily available and there is no point in wasting time/energy trying to compile the list ourselves. I didn’t know much about the international scope of the stand-alone (or what data was out-there and easy to cite and add), so I thought I would just bring it up. But regardless the article is great, it is in-depth, it is complete, it is well written, it is well sourced, it is quality work, it is fun to read, it is a great resource and I totally support it. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweetums

  • Nominate: A great page about a great character. -- Danny (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: A vast improvement, and like Rowlf the Dog, a good model as we gradually try to improve the pages for all the main characters who have been neglected. My only gripe is the citation tag for the bit about the eyes; though it's not in the guidelines and may be just a personal preference, I don't like the idea of "Quality Articles" having citation tags. I think that statement should either be sourced or removed before this gets Quality status. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I looked at this page recently and thought that this page should become a quality article, and now it's got a nomination! It gets my vote. --Minor muppetz 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree about the unsourced info. I moved that bit to the talk page, and posted a message on the talk page of the user who posted it. -- Danny (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I dimly remember him being on The Muppet Show, but I didn't know much else about him, since I hadn't seen The Muppet Show since the original run, so I mostly remembered him running after Kermit and the gang in The Muppet Movie (which I've seen a bunch of times). I totally forgot about his appearance in The Frog Prince, since I hadn't seen that in years either. I really learned a lot from this article. -- Ken (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mystery Science Theater 3000

  • Nominate: Painstakingly detailed original research, with information you can't find anywhere else. It's only interesting to people who like MST3K, of course, so if you don't know the show, then you don't care about the article. But I think people who know the show will find this valuable and entertaining. -- Danny (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: My only quibble is the image for Star Force: Fugitive Alien II. It shows the title card for the movie, but the description suggests the Muppet relevance lies entirely within the frame scenes. Is it possible to get an image of the cue-card drawing of Rowlf? Other than that, it's a well organized page, and even if you're not a huge fan, fun to browse through and see the variety of Muppet references, from dialogue quips to a Cookie Monster toy. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, there are two episodes that I don't have right now -- Star Force and It Lives By Night. They're not available on DVD, so I'm going to see if I can get them from another source. Those two images are placeholders for the moment. -- Danny (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I love this page, and I also wanted to make a comment. I've never seen the show, and I still think this page is interesting. I love the idea of making wisecracks while you're watching horrible movies, and this page has a bunch of lines (and pictures) that make me laugh out loud. It might even make me want to actually watch some of these movies! -- Ken (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Like I said earlier on Danny's talk page, this is everything this wiki can be. Seriously, just count the screenshots -- there are few Muppet production pages on this wiki with such complete illustration. -- Mark (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Superman

  • Nominate: A detailed list of references and appearances, plus great images and all around fun. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree, it's a great article. We've put a lot of work into this one, especially Scott. -- Danny (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support:Me, too. It's a fantastic article, full of great details and images. -- MuppetDude 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well done -- even the connections list is fascinating to read. -- Mary Catherine (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bimbo

  • Nominate: A complete and comprehensive look at the man in a bear's finger. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I really like this article. I like the behind-the-scenes photo, and there are some great sources. I was hoping that somebody would nominate this. --Minor muppetz 22:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Yeah, this works for me. It's got good photos, and I like the quotes. -- Danny (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It's so insane it works; it's well written, has good images, and we don't even see the central character! -- MuppetDude 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sesame Street Singles

  • Nominate: I think that this page, along with the album page, is the only one of its kind on the Web, and it's certainly the most complete listing I've ever seen. -- Ken (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: This is original research, exactly the kind of thing that Muppet Wiki should be. It's detailed and comprehensive -- and as Ken says, it's the first time this information has ever been collected in one place. -- Danny (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Given the rarity of some of the items, the ratio of images to blanks is surprisingly high. The list itself seems pretty darn thorough, and the header text provides useful context. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with all that's been said. --Minor muppetz 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Thorough, concise, neat. —Scott (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Muppet Eyes

  • Nominate -- Brad D. (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: --Minor muppetz 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a fantastic article, with a comprehensive survey of the different kinds of eyes that are used. It's well-sourced, with lots of quotes. However, I think the writing needs a little more polish. I just did an edit on it, and I think it would be good if somebody else also gives it a once-over. I also added a cite tag for one spot. Once that's done, I'll be happy to give this article enthusiastic support. -- Danny (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I just made a pass at some touch-ups on the text and it looks good enough to me right now that I can support a nomination for Qualty status. —Scott (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Yeah, it's great now! It's still got one open citation tag on it... I'll post a talk page question about it. -- Danny (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Muppet Meeting Films

  • Nominate: It's got everything that makes this wiki great: images, quotes and information condensed into a neat table format. --MuppetVJ 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Lots of information, and fantastic pictures. A comprehensive look at a little-known piece of Muppet history. -- Danny (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Thorougly covered; again, while the text basis was good to start with, the table and the images put this over the top. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Ditto previous comments. —Scott (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Denied

Mahna Mahna (song)

  • Nominate: This page gives thorough coverage of a classic Muppet routine. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Minor TV Mentions

  • Nominate: It now has 100 entries ... --MuppetVJ 15:09, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

NBC Pipes

  • Nominate: This page is a loving tribute to one of the oldest surviving creations by Jim Henson and his fellow artists. That it hasn't been torn down in 46 years during all of the changes at NBC is a minor miracle. And now it has been preserved for future generations. -- Ken (talk) 04:45, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose (temporary): This is a fantastic page, very detailed, great research, great pictures. I'm opposing right now just because we don't have enough sources listed on the page. The quote from The Works is cited, but there aren't any other references. Once the references are added, then I would absolutely support this as a Quality article. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 16:20, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe all the sources are in the video links. —Scott (talk) 19:50, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic page, very detailed and thorough coverage. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The King of Eight

  • Nominate: Detailed coverage and research on a classic Henson animated segment. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:26, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

  • Nomination: January was the time when I first nominated the article and it has been great then as many people edited then. It filled up the Recent Changes list with help by Danny and some other users. It looks great right now with lots of information, sections and images. Webkinz Mania 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article is still a work in progress. There are several years left blank, one redlink and a mismatch of references creating an unbalance. —Scott (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the record, how often an article was edited, how many users edited it, or filling up Recent Changes aren't signs of a Quality Article. The full criteria is here and includes comprehensiveness. Something like "Monsterpiece Theater" may still have an omission, but it includes every known sketch and ekas for the majority, and the same for Sesame Street News Flash, and both are also well-organized and readable. This is why I encouraged you to nominate other articles, Ellis. It could still become a Quality Article at some point, but it needs a lot of work and probably more research (which may or may not be available). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure why you guys think it's so incomplete. The four main sections are very detailed, and have lots of references. The "Muppet Appearances" list is only missing one year. The only thing that really looks "incomplete" is the list of characters on the Sesame float; that's more of a nerdy, completist thing, so I moved it to the bottom of the article. I'm not sure what Scott means about the references being unbalanced. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Letter of the Day

  • Nomination: This article is great with lots of info about The Letter of the Day sketches from Season 33-39. It looks great right now. Webkinz Mania 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree, this page is worthy. --Minor muppetz 02:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Article appears complete with a sufficient lead-in and descriptions. —Scott (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm on the fence. It actually only has skits from three seasons. Nothing for Seasons 34, 36, and 37 (according to the article, it seems like 37 was the last to feature it on a daily basis, but implies season 38 my have had a few new segments), unless we know for a fact that all of those used repeats. Right now, Letter of the Day Games is also a separate page, but the title is fanmade just to cover some Letter of the Day segments that use a game show format (and which seems to account for most of the season 36 blanks). I think that could be merged (though the writing there is shakier). The lead-in is good, though, and the top image amusing. Some of this may be longterm, but some may also be fixable. It may take awhile to fully cover every season, but right now, three wholly unaccounted for (and possible omissions on others) strikes me as a sign of a promising article that's not yet reached fruition. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: When I looked the page over, I didn't realize so many sketches were missing. If that's true, I rescind my supporting vote until such a time as those gaps can be filled. —Scott (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought the same thing as Andrew, that several seasons were missing. But is it possible that no new Letter of the Day segments were shot for those seasons? The article is unclear on this matter, but that should be clarified before this can become a Quality Article. -- Peter (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Muppet Show Musicians

  • Nominate: I just discovered this and I think it's brilliant. Not a great deal of information, but pictures for each band member. And it's a really interesting thing that very few people know about. --GrantHarding 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree! It's a great page. -- Ken (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is a great page, but there isn't any picture of Derek Scott. Is there one available? With that (and perhaps a birth year) the page would be pretty much complete, I think. --Justin 00:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Number Song Series

Nominated Jan. 24th, closes Feb. 8th

  • Nominate: Very well-laid out and informative. --MuppetVJ 02:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Although the article title is made up, I agree. --Minor muppetz 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: If we can find the correct title, I agree (A Song of, perhaps?). Peace. —MuzikJunky 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no real correct, consistent title. The current one was used to replace "The Baker Films," since just calling it "A Song of" wouldn't work, and the registered title used for the songs and such is discussed in detail in the first paragraph, as are some of the other variants, so that situation is handled as best as possible. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bicycles

Nominated Nov 16th, vote closes Nov 30th

  • Nominate: Well, it explains how it was done, for one thing, and that's something a lot of people want to know. Detailed explanations, quotes, and pictures of all the different appearances (as well as a behind-the-scenes shot). I don't know how it could be made better -- though if it could, I'd love to see it. --GrantHarding 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree. Some of the Muppets best-known moments have been bicycle scenes. And now maybe fans will stop asking how Kermit can ride a bicycle because of the article. --Minor muppetz 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I love the article, but I think that the Sesame Street section needs some work. Does anyone know when Elmo first rode the tricycle? Did he end up riding the version that Kevin Clash bought two years earlier? It also uses the word "tricycle" quite a bit - I'd try to re-edit it, but the added information would help first. Also, this part might merit its own subsection, with listings of episodes, songs, etc. in which Elmo rides his tricycle. -- Peter (talk)
  • Comment: Actually, outside of the writing problems involved in that section, I think this could be moved into a seperate article on "Elmo's tricycle," or as notes on "Riding My Tricycle," which appears to be the earliest known appearance, especially if a full listing of episodes, songs, etc. is added. A tricycle is a related vehicle, but I feel like expanding that section too much would detract from the main purpose of the article. I'd rather have it as a seperate article linked with a see-also or just a one line note, since it's also the only example where the same vehicle was used on multiple occasions. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, a separate tricycle article could work. We should also probably add a Motorcycles article to this list. -- Peter (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Juhl

Nominated on November 2, vote closes November 16

  • Nominate -- Brad D. (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I did a lot of work on this, when it was originally pretty sparse, and Scott added some wonderful pictures, but at best I'd say it's halfway there to quality status. I'm fairly proud of the early biography, I think that's already at Quality level. But the next section is brief and a bit bland, listing projects but with no real details. Basically, it needs more elaboration on his contributions as a writer, beyond just saying he did this and that. I added a couple sentences, from sources I had handy, but I'm sure others can help dig stuff up based on their reference collections. I lost access to the Syracuse Library, but anyone with a copy of the Of Muppets and Men book, I know there's some stuff in there about the writing process; right now, there's one sentence about his Muppet Show work. Any comments on specific characters, from his perspective as a writer, or of characters he created or developed, would help (there's some good stuff in the MuppetZine interview about the Gonzo/Rizzo pairing, but right now there's no good place to hang it). Stuff on the movies seems hard to come by (interviews like the Muppet Central one tend to bypass a lot of questions about the actual writing), but at least a short paragraph or even just a couple sentences about The Muppet Show, and a paragraph on Fraggle Rock, given how many episodes he scripted and the role he had in shaping the whole show (there should be stuff on that in the season set DVD extras, I know). Anything else would be welcome, but I feel like those two areas need to at least be addressed, beyond "Jerry Juhl worked on this show," before it can be considered Quality. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I thought that this article looked like quality several months ago. I especially like the parts about Juhl's early life. --Minor muppetz 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Frogtown Jubilee Jug Band

Nominated on November 2, vote closes November 16

  • Nominate -- Brad D. (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Balcony

Nominated August 29th, vote closes September 12th

  • Nominate: A very well-put together page and great coverage of the subject. It is comprehensive, well written, supported and sourced, has good uses of images, and gives an overall indepth look at the topic. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know, this was recently nominated. --Minor muppetz 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm still opposing this nomination, for the same reason that I gave in the prior nomination in April. I just don't like the subject. -- Danny (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Danny, I'm just wondering then if there is anything that could be done to this article that would make it a quality article by your standards. I think the article is really a quality article (whether the subject that it covers is a quality production or not). Is your criteria for opposing it something that can be realistically or reasonably be overcome by the work of our wiki editors, or is this subject just inherently doomed from being worked into having quality coverage in our encyclopedia? -- Brad D. (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: For me, it's doomed. People can vote to overturn my opposition if they want to, but I really don't like the show, and I don't want to give the article quality status. -- Danny (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn: Well, I'm going to vote to "overturn" as the opposition is holding the article against a property unrelated to the quality of the article itself, and is imposing a standard that is thus impossible for us as editors, researchers and writers to overcome. You may feel that the production is or isn't quality work, but I feel that the article is quality coverage of the subject. It would be like opposing the Karen Prell article solely based on the fact you think she's "the meanest woman alive" rather then judging the merits of the aricle's writing, cover and overall quality. The nomination still needs three other people to give votes of both "support" and "overturn" in order for it to pass, so we'll see how others feel. -- Brad D. (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I oppose this, too. It's been put together well enough and has a nifty table, but I don't like the idea that this subpar web series will be partially representing what we call "quality" on Muppet Wiki. —Scott (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with Scott. This article is more like an episode guide, and the show isn't as good as the other nominations/winners. The series' writing and performance is not of the high quality that the Muppet productions are famous for. -- MuppetDude 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Our definition of a quality article says: "Not all topics or articles within the scope of Muppet Wiki will be able to achieve quality status due to the nature of the subject... Being a quality article is not a comparative award, but rather based solely on the full potential of the subject and article itself." In other words: Some subjects just aren't good enough to justify Quality status. You could write an enormous, well-illustrated and impeccably sourced article on It's a Jungle Out There!, and it still wouldn't be eligible for Quality status, because it's not an interesting enough subject. -- Danny (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, I personally liked the webshow. Sure it wasn't as great as say The Muppet Show or The Muppet Movie, however I thought it was a decent show. It had some very funny characters and moments throughout the run. And others seem to agree as it won a bunch of awards. I think the article is as interesting to read as Western Publishing or the Sesame Street Discography... but I digress. If you guys all hate the show so much then I guess I'll give up fighting for the quality coverage this series has been given here. I think topic is one that is worthy of being given quality coverage, and I feel that the coverage it has here is quality level work. -- Brad D. (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bimbo

  • Nominate: A complete and comprehensive look at the man in a bear's finger. -- Brad D. (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, I didn't even realize our Bimbo page was so extensive! However, the writing needs another pass -- the first two lines of the article already sound clunky to me. —Scott (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with what Scott said. --Minor muppetz 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kermit the Frog Impersonators

  • Nominate: Yeah, it's a list page. But it's astonishingly comprehensive, pulling in entries from lots of different sources. It's really fun to browse through, and I imagine that it makes readers feel amazed, puzzled and delighted, not necessarily in that order. The recent addition of Miss Piggy waving her arms is the total clincher for me. That's quality, baby. -- Danny (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think each entry could use a better description before I could offer a supporting vote. A lot of those pictures only have one bland line of text that could be spruced up. —Scott (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From the Balcony

  • Nominate: -- Brad D. (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-formatted.--MuppetVJ 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It has improved a great deal since the last time I looked at this page. --Minor muppetz 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree, this is a very well-put together page. It's complete, and it's got great images. But I just hate the show, and I can't stand the idea of having this in the Quality section. If people feel like this is unfair and want to overturn my vote, then go ahead. I just don't want this page up there. -- Danny (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, I liked the show. I understand the fanbase is split on the issue of the show's merits but I really feel this article is a quality article (it is well written, comprehensive, accurate, verifiable, well supported, neutral, stable, and it has good uses of images). Even if you think the subject it represents isn't quality, the article is quality. So Danny, how can the article be improved to satisfy your standard of quality? Please let us know what should/could be done to improve the article. Or is your opposing vote based on an "unrealistic or unreasonable" criteria that makes it impossibile for this page to be improved to a quality status your eye? If that's the case then I'm going to have to vote to "overturn" your veto. This is a quality article (even if it's not a quality webshow).-- Brad D. (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, it's a good article. My opposition is based entirely on my opinion of the subject. Whether that's "unreasonable" or not is open to debate; I think you could make a case either way. If you want to vote to overturn, then go ahead. This nomination got two supporting votes, so it gets another week. -- Danny (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki