Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article Avatar: The Last Airbender is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Avatar: The Last Airbender has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 21, 2007.
Did You Know Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 24, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 28, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
November 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
December 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
January 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
August 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
June 16, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
February 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
February 25, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 19, 2009.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 26, 2017. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Number of episodes wrong[edit]

Number of episodes is 62, not 61 (include '0-th' episode from season 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the critical response section[edit]

The critical response section suffers quite a bit from the "A said B" problem; see WP:RECEPTION. For exampl, in the first paragraph we have "Nick Hartel said... Erik Amaya describes... Henry Glasheen calls... Brittany Lovely assured..." and on for eight or ten more sentences. It's better to find common threads in the critical commentary and structure the sentences around those, using the individual critics as support -- and you don't always have to name them in the sentence. See Talk:True Detective (season 1) for an example of how to start with the critical commentary and construct a reception section that avoids "A said B".

The other paragraphs have the same problem though they are slightly more varied. It isn't enough to assign each critical comment to an appropriate paragraph and list it in sequence -- that reads like a simple list of comments with no structure. I can see there is some organization -- for example the comments on animation are all together -- but that's not quite enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya, I came to the talk page to say the same thing. Many of the comments can be stacked. Instead of X felt it was the best and Y said it was the best, either go "X and Y said it was the best" or "multiple journalists described it as the best"—but the point is to give clarity for a general audience. When you use surnames in the later paragraphs, how am I to remember who said what, and if the who isn't important then why are we seeing their last names anyway? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie and Czar: I did a re-write of it here. -- 1989 17:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to review it without the refs, since some of the generalized claims—as phrased—would need some exceptionally authoritative support. czar 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mike Christie and Czar: Miniapolis recently helped copyedit the section and the rest. Could you take a quick look to see if it's up to FA standards? -- 1989 02:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I think my original comments still apply to the live, copyedited version. I thought the rewrite went in the right direction, but I can't evaluate the extent of its claims while the rewritten text is unsourced (don't know text–source integrity) czar 04:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I added refs. -- 1989 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't give a full review right now but my quick response to the question is that it's not FA-ready yet. Statements like "The Avatar series has received mostly positive reviews from critics" are declarative and easily challenged, so a source should be provided. Sources like and, at least at first blush, do not appear reliable for statements of fact (do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, akin to newspapers and other published periodicals?) and nevertheless shouldn't be used for major pronouncements like "It has been labeled as one of best cartoons and animated programs to air on American television". On a lesser note, one reviewer—especially a minor one—making such a claim on the basis of their own opinion ("I truly believe that it’s one of the best animated TV series") becomes disingenuous if generalized as a widespread opinion. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as a major source making that summative claim from multiple other reviewers or some other wide expertise. I'm not familiar with some of the publications used here but that's all the more reason why it's useful to have more information on why we're trusting reporting from "Inside Pulse" and "Nerd Society", if such sources should be used at all. There is also some jumping between they vs. he in referring to a single reviewer—it should be consistent even if using the outlet metonymously for the reviewer. The sentence structure could also be more interesting (FA "brilliant"-quality prose) by inverting sentences (without using passive voice) to avoid "X said that Y" repetition. After resolving the above, I'd look at holistically massaging the text into sentences that flow into each other. I'd personally remove about half of the examples, starting with the unreliable sources and reorganizing the text into smaller paragraphs by theme, with each paragraph signposted such that the reader knows what to expect and the text doesn't read like a list in paragraph format. czar 17:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

New Article Critique[edit]

This is a great article! It has a lot of reliable sources, like the New York Times, interviews from the creators themselves, and other pbulications like Slug Magazine and Hypable. The only things I would add, in terms of sources or gaining new information, is, in the film section, directly source the Rotten Tomtatoes page and, if possible, find some sources that have an opposing view point and/or point out the redemable (if any) factors of the movie in roder to help the article read more neutrally.

All of the information is defintly up to date -- I loved how the sequel section is labeled and links to the Legend of Korra page. Maybe adding a bit more information and how sections of that show relate back to the original would be good and would give that section more relevant and updated information. Things like, are there any characters that reapear in the sequel, or any voice actors who voice a new character.

As for clarity, the critical reception could be cleaned up. There is a lot of long, bulk text that makes that information difficult to read and sort through -- maybe seperating it with block quotes or only sticking to the major critical outlets.

Otherwise, fantastic article!

VicBrncz (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)VicBrncz

"Universal acclaim"[edit]

I don't think we should use "universal" as the term indicates there are no detractors. Please change it to "largely positive reviews". (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Truth or vandalism?[edit]

I am not sure whether the claim that it is considered one of the worst movies ever made holds water, could it be vandalism? (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

its on the list here. Wikiman5676 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)