User:MuppetArchives/Quality article nominations

This page is for determining which articles are quality articles. A quality article should exemplify Muppet Wiki's very best work. The award is given based on merit.

Nominations

 * Check the quality article criteria and ensure that the article meets all of them before nominating.
 * Place ===name of nominated article=== under the nomination heading here.
 * Below this title, write your reason for nominating the article and sign with ~.

Casting votes

 * To support a nomination, write *Support: followed by your reasons.
 * To oppose a nomination, write *Oppose: followed by your reasons.
 * To comment on a nomination without voting, write *Comment: followed by your comment.
 * Your vote can be changed at any time. If you change your vote, don't delete the old vote -- that comment is an important part of the discussion. Instead, put a line through the old vote by adding and around the previous comment.

Awarding Quality status

 * A decision is made two weeks from the day that an article is nominated.


 * An article with at least 3 supporting votes (not counting the nomination) and no opposing votes gets Quality status.


 * An article with 2 supporting votes remains on the list for another week. If the article doesn't earn 3 supporting votes by the end of three weeks, it's removed from the nomination slate.


 * An article with 0-1 supporting votes after two weeks is removed from the nomination slate.


 * One opposing vote can "veto" a nomination. There are two ways to deal with an opposing vote. If the article is improved enough to satisfy the person who cast the opposing vote, then it can be removed. If the opposing vote is based on unrealistic or unreasonable criteria, then three supporters can vote to "overturn" the veto. An article with an opposing vote can't be given Quality status until one of those conditions is met.

The Seven Deadly Sins

 * Nominate: This obscure topic is well researched and makes for an interesting read. — Scott ( talk ) 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: good depth of coverage, well sourced, nice flow and appropriate length. -- Brad D. (talk ) 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Absolutely, one of the best-researched articles. -- Danny (talk ) 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- Andrew Leal (talk ) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The article is certainly well researched and probably says everything that is publicly known about the topic, but aside from the interesting Minghella quote, it says precious little about the project itself and reads like a pretty standard timeline of how a movie didn't get made in Hollywood. I wouldn't say it isn't quality, but I don't think it's among the best articles the Wiki has to offer. -- Peter  (talk ) 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonder Pig

 * Nominate: The article is thorough given the brief exposure she had on The Muppet Show. The production photograph is superior to episode screenshots and best represents the care taken in creating the costume. The article also thoroughly describes the character's origins and connections to the lineage of what she is spoofing. — Scott ( talk ) 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's a great article, but I don't like that picture. The shadow is weird and distracting to me. We have another Wonder Pig picture on the wiki; Scott and I have traded pictures back and forth a couple times. I hate to be a bitch about it, but there you are. -- Danny (talk ) 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What if we were able to come up with another Wonder Pig picture that everybody loved and could support? George B. ''(talk ) 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Scott changed the picture, and I did some editing on the text. I retract my opposing vote, and now I can happily support the nomination. I think it's a fun, weird article, the kind of detailed analysis that only Muppet Wiki can do. I like the explanations of the different parts of her costume. -- Danny (talk ) 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: A good and fun article. Although it is on the shorter side, it is a very comprehensive look at the subject. -- Brad D. (talk ) 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

 * Nominate: Well-written, well researched, fascinating read. — Scott ( talk ) 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a strong article and a fun read, but there's lots of other References articles that are better. The Muppet references are fairly minor. If this were nominated a while from now when we had a lot of other Quality articles, then I would vote yes, but for now, I think we could find better examples. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gorilla Suits

 * Nominate: Thorough, entertaining, well-written, good amount of imagery. — Scott ( talk ) 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: In-depth, informative, good use of images and well written. -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Yes. Very well-researched, comprehensive. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- <font color="Blue">Andrew Leal (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Cantus Rock 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jimmy Dean Show

 * Nominate - <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - This is filled with great information, has nice supporting pictures and is well-sourced. I like this one. <font color="Blue">George B. ''(<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Well researched, even if our current info on appearances is limited. — Scott ( talk ) 04:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree, I think it's a well-researched and comprehensive page. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support' -- 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rowlf the Dog

 * Nominate - <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: It's a nice article, there's a lot of good information. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support' --- <font color="Blue">Andrew Leal (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Cantus Rock 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode 111: A Wagon of a Different Color

 * Nominate: I wanted to get this one onto here because we made into sort of a team project. Through various work, we got the more-detailed summary to an appropriate length and a nice picture was also added as well. It has good details about the content of the episode, plus information about a related book, video releases and other details. - <font color="Blue">George B. ''(<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think there's anything special about it. It's a perfectly ordinary, run-of-the-mill Bear episode. The synopsis is over-written and still far too long. The picture is poor quality; it would be better to have screenshots. It's not a bad page, but it doesn't come close to being one of the best pages on the wiki. If we're going to give "Quality" status to an episode page, it should be for an episode that stands out in some way, and it should be written better than this one. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Although this is one of the better Bear episode pages, there is nothing about it that makes this article overly inspiring. I have nothing against giving "quality" status to a run-of-the-mill episode, but this is just a run-of-the-mill article with a more details plot summary. More sections/aspects of the article would need to be above average and rounded out for me to fully support. There is still some work that could be done to polish and expand the article - all the information can easily be obtained by anyone watching the episode on DVD. It has a detailed plot summary, but the overall coverage, analysis, information and presentation of the topic hasn't wowed me. Plus, as Danny said, better picture(s) would be nice…and getting the original air date (or at least year) would be nice. -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

China

 * Nominate: I think it's funny, well-written and comprehensive. It's about as close as we can get on Muppet Wiki to a humor piece, but it's also informative about the way China has been represented on the show. It includes interesting quotes from reviews in a clever way. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 15:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -- <font color="Blue">Andrew Leal (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: It's very well-researched and incorporates nicely quotes and observations from various Sesame Street productions. The pictures are excellent as well. -- <font color="Blue">Mary Catherine (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pigs in Space

 * Nominate: Comprehensive and well-written, with a visual guide to every sketch. The space shuttle note is interesting, and well-sourced. The merchandise section is complete and informative. Now that I think about it, it could use a gallery of merchandise at the bottom, but that can be added. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: One of the best sketch pages on the Wiki, and a good model for others to follow, plus a great article and a fun read in general. -- <font color="Blue">Andrew Leal (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: This is one of the best sketch pages we have. Some production information or quotes or information on the genesis would be nice to round it out more - but I don't know how easy that information is to come by. -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Complete, detailed. Ditto other comments. — Scott ( talk ) 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support --Cantus Rock 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)