Wikipedia:Featured article review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive2

Degrassi: The Next Generation

Degrassi: The Next Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Degrassi: The Next Generation
• Featured article candidates/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1

• Featured article review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1
• Featured article review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive2

Notified: Matthewedwards (diff here), Degrassi task force (diff here), WikiProject Television (diff here)

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it needs a reassessment. The article was nominated for FA in May 2008 by Matthewedwards and promoted to that status shortly after. I have spent the past four or so months improving, creating and expanding articles related to the Degrassi franchise including getting several articles about the earlier shows of the franchise to GA. I've fixed the lead and several things on the article already. I am not overly familiar with the FA criteria but I think it's clear that the article as it now stands may not meet it.

A lot of things on the article were referring to the show in present tense, which is inaccurate as it ended nearly six years ago, and which I've mostly fixed. I also feel the ratings section is way too huge and could probably be cut down, and the home media section refers to streaming platforms as "new media" when these services have been around for a while and are a dominant form of media as of late. Not only that, but the Degrassi task force seems to be completely inactive, and I am the only one that appears to be doing anything with articles about the subject aside from those who have helped me get articles reviewed and promoted, like Bilorv and Some Dude from North Carolina. I feel that because this is a featured article it needs greater attention so that it can continue to be a featured article. I would have expected the article of a show with as large of a fanbase as it continues to have to keep being updated and improved even after the end of it's run. ToQ100gou (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Article currently doesn't follow proper MOS:TV section ordering. There needs to be something like a 'Premise', 'Plot' or 'Overview' section – then 'Episodes' (optionally, this can be folded into an 'Overview' section), then 'Cast', then 'Production', followed by 'Broadcast' and 'Reception' sections. Also, is the lede too long? On the "New media" thing, that section can simply be renamed 'Streaming' – in fact, as per MOS:TV, a separate 'Home media' section can easily be folded out of the 'Broadcast' section if that works better – that's the more common MOS:TV formatting these days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

On top of that, the article contains unsourced sentences about it's broadcast (such as: "In Australia, ABC1 broadcast the first three seasons in 2002 in its "ABC Kids" lineup and after that the storylines were deemed too adult for the late afternoon timeslot. The entire series was aired on ABC3 in 2010 in a primetime slot, also broadcast on Nickelodeon then later MTV.") and an unnecessary subsection entirely about the executive producers and funding for the show that could probably summed up somewhere else in the article, and various areas don't arguably follow WP:TONE. I'll try and rectify all of these problems myself and see where the article stands after that. ToQ100gou (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC A recent major editor of the article thinks it needs to go through this process, and I agree with them. If ToQ100gou is willing to bring this back to FA standards, I am happy to provide a more thorough assessment. I do, however, have a potential COI because I was classmates with several actors of the series, but I haven't spoken to them in over a decade and I don't think it will affect my ability to review. Some of my concerns are the use of "TV Feeds My Family" as a source as it is listing television ratings that I think can be provided by a more reputable source than a blog. Several sections are too long and need to be trimmed. The Production section includes way too much detailed information, and sections need to be removed or merged. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think the television ratings section could probably be trimmed down significantly. It goes too much into detail about the ratings when it could be summed up in probably one or two small paragraphs. Things are still explained in present tense, although I've fixed some of them so far. The production section could definitely be trimmed down. The opening sequence section in particular is a bit too detailed without offering any critical commentary. Yes, the opening sequence of Next Generation is iconic and memorable to many, but where are sources that indicate such memorability? On the Degrassi Junior High article, we can see that show's opening sequence and theme song has been singled out for both scholarly and critical commentary for being unique among other openings of the same kind and thus warrants the detailed explanation it has. So Next Gen's can probably be trimmed to just the important information.

  My other issue is the usage of the term "new media", which after posting this reply I am going to fix. The "new media" refers to streaming platforms and other online services that have as of now been around for many years and are dominant. These sentences are also in the present tense, so they are going to be updated to reflect that it's the past. ToQ100gou (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• When your concerns are fixed, ToQ100gou, please ping me and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delist: ToQ100gou made some edits in early-July, but more work needs to be done to address my concerns above. Improvements seem to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delist. Unsourced statements. The article looks as though it could be saved: for example, the unsourced sentences look as though they could just be cut but I've never seen the show, so am not comfortable doing it myself. DrKay (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Hog Farm _Talk 05:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)