The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 December 2019 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware.

The first article I created (26.1.18), my first GA (24.2.18), and my first A class (14.8.18). After which it languished until Nick-D, bless him, added Briddiscombe and so provided the underpinning to tie the article together and, perhaps, hopefully, make it fit to be considered for FA. Given its history I am sure that it is riven with faults and will be grateful to all those who help to point these out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see another battle of WWII.

• Link WWII.

See below.

• Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
• Pipe Canada or Canadese to the Dominion of Canada.
• the division's commander, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.

No it doesn't. Did you click the link? Canadian usage.

• Do the sources say it without a hyphen? Because I've heard that some Commonwealth countries before and in WWII use those kinds of ranks before they got old fashioned.

It is confused. Vokes doesn't hyphenate it in his autobiography, but the official history does. Let's assume that Vokes didn't know how to spell his own rank and I will hyphenate through out. (Good point.)

• Link Soviet Union.
• about the threat of a German resistance movement, and Soviet forces killed Link the German resistance.

I am unable to find an article on German resistance to the Allies. If you could point me to it I would be grateful.

• Here a German resistance to the allies - Werwolf.

Thanks. Done. (I was typing in werewolf!)

• 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.

See above.

• Link Rhine.
• Link Allied/Allies.
• circumstances as buoyant as it was recognised that British recognised here we should use Canadian English.

Good point. Done.

• an assault crossing of the Ems river --> "an assault crossing of the Ems River"

No. River Ems; but Ems river. Honest. (Check it, you won't find an "Ems River" usage. You may find "Ems, River", that's different.)

• I always am confused with both of them.

English, a language deliberately invented to confuse foreigners. It also confuses almost everyone else - as you prove a little below.

• Primary units metric vs English?

I am not getting your point. Primary units are imperial. As used by Canadians at the time. Is that incorrect?

• You're not wrong but I mean look at this sentence "The division advanced a further 25 kilometres (16 mi) to Sögel" which is written in metric units.
  • (talk page stalker) There's also "20 miles (32 km) west of Oldenburg", so these should be consistent. If you wish to preserve the source figure in the convert template, you can use |order=flip so that the input is displayed as secondary and the output as primary. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• west of Oldenburg, on the river Soeste --> "west of Oldenburg, on the River Soeste"

Ah! Done.

• Got you. ;p

Yep. Dead to rights :-( .

• Several hundred paratroopers from Battalion Raabe of the 7th Parachute Division No link for the Battalion Raabe?

No. An ad hoc battlegroup. It may only have existed for a few days. The article on the division is only 8 lines.

• repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment Same as above with the Lake Superior Regiment?

Strangely perhaps, no. (The articles on the last of the WWII divisions are still being created. It is probably expecting too much for all of the battalions to have been filled in.)

• Argylls secured the town by 10:30 am --> "Argylls secured the town by 10:30"
• headquarters by surprise at around 8:30 am --> "headquarters by surprise at around 08:30"

Both done.

• the fucking place. Get the people the hell out of their houses first.'"[12][21] Re-order the refs here.

Done. (You do realise that there is no Wikipedia requirement for this?)

• I do! But most sources use refs in numerical order and because this isn't included in MOS it shouldn't be included.

• Canadian force was also authorised to burn down the village British authorised.

Done.

• The Canadian army official historian Link Canadian army and capitalise "army".

Army capitalised. See below re link.

• Be that as it may."[12][11] Re-order the refs here.

Done.

• In the image "File:Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg" "Major General Christopher Vokes" --> "Major-General Christopher Vokes"

See above.

• was used to fill craters in local roads to make them passable Change the "in" with "on".

Er, why?

• Sounds better in my ears but if it doesn't to you then I do not mind having "in" instead of "on".

Yeah, craters are in a road. They might be on the moon, but off hand I can't think of another example.

• forces destroyed German buildings on a number of occasions --> "forces destroyed German buildings on several occasions"

Done.

• The British commanders disapproved of retaliations against civilians --> "The British commanders disapproved of retaliation against civilians"

No. In this case, "retaliations" is the correct usage. (A noun, rather than a verb.)

• This was accomplished with several truck-loads of dynamite Remove the hyphen here.

Done.

• eight hours and Friesoythe was almost totally destroyed Remove totally.

No. The phrase doesn't make sense then. How I have expressed it is acceptable usage - honest. "Almost destroyed" means something completely different.

• According to one German assessment, 85–90 per cent of the town was destroyed British per cent.

Done.

• the destruction to be as high as 90 per cent Same as above.

Done.

• Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties --> "Canadian authorities of the damage or civilian casualties"

No. One needs both definite articles for the two nouns.

• several 17-year-old youths with less than eight weeks military experience --> "several 17-year-old youths with fewer than eight weeks military experience"

No. Fewer is used when the intervals are discrete. And while weeks are, they represent time here, which isn't. So "less" is correct.

• Strange because I thought fewer is used for countable nouns like weeks and less for uncountable?

Ah. this is a tricky one. So you might say "Should basic training last 12 weeks, or fewer?" meaning that it will always last a number of complete weeks. But "I wish that basic training lasted less than 12 weeks." meaning that this might be one day, 10 days, or any other period of time not related to whole weeks. IMO, the article is using weeks in the latter sense.

That's anything from me. Hopefully, we'll have more WWII battles here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - more WWII battles that is.

• Some of the suggested links above. I know that you have read MOS:OL, so why are you asking for so many links which are "[e]veryday words understood by most readers in context"? Eg WWII; USSR, Rhine; which are pretty much specifically included in the categories of things not to link. Am I missing something? I have linked as you suggest where I think that I have missed something, and thanks for catching those. Others I have left, pending discussion here.

• I understand you wanna stay with unlinking those especially WWII. But the USSR and the Rhine are different. Believe the USSR is indeed really common but most people would say Cold War, Communism, Stalin and Russians. I do not think they know the rest of the former country especially the younger generations who never met the Cold War (like me). And speaking about the Rhine I do believe it is really common among us, Europeans like us, but would Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis or the rest of world know it? It's not the same as the Nile which is one of the important and longest river the world has.
  • (talk page stalker) I tend to favour the more-specific links. In the case of the Allied crossing of the Rhine in Operation Plunder the linking to the more-specific article is probably more useful to the reader, while Rhine is linked in the lead sentence of Operation Plunder so that it is still easy for the reader to get to that article. It's easy to work from a specific article to a general one; the reverse is not always easy or obvious. Linking both diverts attention, etc. "Canadian Army official history" could be pipe-linked on first mention in the lead and body; I wouldn't link only the "Canadian Army" part. Perhaps "Soviet Union's leadership" could be linked to something like State Defense Committee, if that's correct and felt to be useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit clash with Reidgreg. Hi Reidgreg, I wondered if you might be watching this. I had just made the changes suggested by CPA-5, and added this comment here:

• Done, but I think that you are using your common sense, rather than what it says in MOS:OL: "the following are usually not linked: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries; geographic features; locations... " You are saying that "Canada" doesn't fit into one of those? (I have linked it anyway - see here.) Then again, possibly I overdo the not overlinking malarkey. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Phew. I seem to have given you quite a bit of work to do. Thanks for your usual very thorough review. All of your points addressed above, although I have disagreed with several and queried a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild: Accomplished your challenge. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5. Much appreciated as always. I think that I have covered everything that you have flagged up. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Good afternoon. All of your points above have been addressed, some with queries or explanations. What do you think? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild: Good afternoon mate sorry I had a really busy week. Yes all except one are addressed, you missed this one which unit should be primary in the article miles or kilometres? This is the only comment who's not addressed by you. BTW last comment here is it Razing of Friesoythe or Battle of Friesoythe? Because the infobox says something different. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: No worries. real life happens. I knew that you were busy/distracted by some of your delays in getting back to things, but you do a huge amount of reviewing here, so who cares? I am more than grateful for what you do do.

Kms/miles: I am not happy, but the editorial consensus seems to be for km, so all switched. And yes, "Razing". Good spot, not sure how that happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I believe all of my comments are addressed so I reckon I can let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This article says that reprisals are per se forbidden by the Hague Conventions. According to this article, it's actually disputed amongst legal scholars:

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 avoided the issue of reprisals for “fear that express regulation might be interpreted as a legitimation of their use.”54 Some contend, however, that Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations is the first primitive effort to codify the law of belligerent reprisals. That article reads: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise,shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”5

• The post-war WWII trials tended to follow the position that reprisals were legal if they met certain criteria (p. 99).
• Rogers, R. L. (1989). and Foster, Tony (2000) appear to be self-published sources, what makes them reliable?

Rogers is printed by the Lincoln and Welland Regiment. It is their official history. I don't see that as "self published".

Foster: I am not sure where you are getting that from. The first edition was published by Methuen and jointly authored by the Mazal Holocaust Collection, which is about as RS as I can imagine. See WorldCat

You might consider listing the regiment as the publisher, as Google Books does, although it's fine either way. Foster is currently listed as published by the vanity press iUniverse but as long as the previous edition was published by a credible publisher it is fine.

D'oh! I have no idea why I didn't do that. Even when you queried it, it didn't occur to me. Over focused I think - been working on this for too long. Done.

The copy I accessed was by iUniverse. I didn't realise that it was dubious - the book itself is so obviously scholarly. No idea how iU ended up printing an edition. I understand your point now, but the actual text is impeccably scholarly and RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Other sources look OK
• Sources are correctly formatted
• Recommend linking Brockhaus Enzyklopädie and The Canadian Encyclopedia

Good point. Both done.

Other comments

• Reprisal should be linked in the lede and first occurrence in the body

Reprisal links to "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them ... " That is not what is meant here. I couldn't find an article on reprisal in the Hague Convention sense, which is why it is unlinked. However, spurred by you, I have found collective punishment which more or less fits, and I could link it to there; what do you think?

• Some German civilians joined the fighting and were believed to have killed several Canadian soldiers. This seems like an important detail. Shouldn't it be in the lede? Currently, if you just read the lede, you'd think that the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians.

That quote is from the "Context" section, sub-section "Battle for Sögel"; which was 4 days before the "Battle for Friesoythe" (new section) and 21 miles away. So it didn't justify the razing of Friesoythe. It was used as a justification for the illegal partial razing of Sogel, which is covered in the lead: "A few days earlier the division had destroyed the centre of Sögel in another reprisal and also used the rubble to make the roads passable." There wasn't even an attempt to use it to justify the razing of Friesoythe, for which, as you say 'the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians'. The Sogel reprisal is mentioned partly as part of the background and leadup to Friesoythe, and partly because it arguably (probably) put the Canadians "in the mood" to believe that they had been attacked by civilians - and perhaps it was easier to raze a town if you had done something similar a few days earlier. But the sources don't explicitly say that, so I am careful not to.

@Fiamh: I do like a reviewer who is rigorous and has a good poke at an article. Thank you. I have covered everything except your first major point about what a reprisal is. I want to save what I have so far, then get my thoughts and sources together for that; so I will be back with the balance of my response shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiamh: My apologies for the delay on getting back to you on this. RL, my health and WP have all become busy. I am aware of this and should respond soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fiamh. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Right then.

The paper you quote above is discussing "belligerent reprisals", which is something different from "reprisals". Belligerent reprisals are defined by the author as "Effectively, belligerent reprisals allow for derogation from the laws of armed conflict to ensure compliance with those same laws." They also distinguish them from "reprisals": "Belligerent reprisals, therefore, bear many of the characteristics of reprisals in general". To support my use of "reprisals with nothing to explain explain or qualify it I shall quote from some of the sources of the article:

• Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War: "Accordingly, as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sögel were ordered destroyed"
• The memoirs of the author of the official history: "a result a great part of the town of Friesoythe was set on fire in a mistaken reprisal. This unfortunate episode only came to my notice and thus got into the pages of history because I was in Friesoythe at the time and saw people being turned out of their houses and the houses burned. How painfully easy it is for the business of "reprisals" to get out of hand."
• The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Vokes ordered the burning and levelling of the town's buildings in reprisal."
• Briddescombe: "reported that the town had been burned down by American occupiers as a reprisal for persistent sniping."
• Williams: "The Germans had to be taught a lesson – keep to the rules of war or suffer reprisals."

Another modern, popular source:

• Atkinson: "When a sniper took a potshot ... Patton ordered German houses burned in retaliation."

Note that Hague IV, Article 23, prohibits acts that "destroy or seize the enemy's property... "

Not sure if I have fully addressed your point here, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiamh: While you are making your mind up on this can I flag up that in meeting a request by Nick-D I have added an additional source - Atkinson. I don't see that this will cause any problems, but I needed to let you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with you that the Friesoythe case was not a "belligerent reprisal" because the German side had not actually broken the law of war. However, arguably the Sögel case was, because civilians are unlawful combatants and it could be argued that burning the town was justified because it would discourage similar illegal actions in the future. I can't see the Briddiscombe source to see exactly what he wrote, but it might be an improvement on the current wording ("Vokes was aware that these actions violated the Hague Conventions") to say instead something like, "Vokes believed that these actions violated the Hague Conventions" or simply that he avoided issuing written instructions and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 20:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biddiscombe does not share your view that destruction of civilian property, outside immediate battle circumstances, ie ever legal. Vokes did this as a policy "even though he knew that this measure violated the Hague rules" (p 258). Brode, in Casual Slaughters and Accidental Judgements: Canadian War Crimes Prosecutions, 1944–1948 (another source in the article) says in passing of Vokes "Strict adherence to the Geneva Convention was not a high priority." (p 105). Google around and there are numerous examples of Vokes attitude. Specifically, I would like to stay with what the source states - "knew". But Peacemaker wants me to dig a bit to find supporting sources on the breach of the Hague Convention front, so that may through up something extra one way or the other. (I thought that I had cracked it "Vokes admitted that he had acted outside of the rules of war", but it relates to Friesoythe. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945.jpg, File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg—need first publication information to confirm PD status
• Quotebox with You should know our soldiers ... breaks across sections Fixed

@Fiamh: Thanks for taking this on. My responses below.

• Quotebox. It doesn't on any of the six screens I have just checked it on. (And no one else has mentioned this.) So it is difficult for me to be sure if I have fixed it, but I have tweaked the dimensions and would be grateful if you could check if it resolves the problem.
• Yes, one would have thought so. But, strictly, one doesn't. The images are from the Library and Archives Canada which state that the copyright has expired. I wrote to them and got the following response:

The ACR image reviewer commented "I think it is fine regardless, though it would be nice if they give us the real publication date. The email you received was very clear." So I wrote again, asking for a precise publication date and was told, a little tartly:

That seems definitive to me. If you would like a copy of the original email thread, drop me an email and I'll copy it to you.

Seperately, I note that what is actually required for the image to be PD in Canada is that it be created prior to the end of 1948. Which these were. (10 and 16 April 1945.) And that they are PD in the US if if they were in the public domain in its home country (Canada) on 1 January 1996, which these were. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems OK to me. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nomination statement, I've added a para or two worth of material to this article and just copy edited it, so I won't vote. I'd like to make the following suggestions though:

• The sentence starting with "However, SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla" is a bit over-long and over-complex

Removed tangential material to simplify. Better?

• The "context" section would probably benefit from material about attitudes by this stage of the war. The Allied troops were fed up by the irrational German resistance to inevitable defeat, especially when it led to casualties in the closing weeks of the war. The Germans had also committed retaliatory actions and other war crimes targeted at civilians on a vast scale across Europe. This led to there being very little sympathy for them.

I'll see what I can find.

I'll also try to dig some stuff up here. The last period of the war on the western front was much more brutal than is often recognised. If German troops and towns surrendered, as they usually did, the troops treated them pretty well. If they put up a fight or were associated with concentration or death camps the Allied troops were ruthless. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote from Vokes in the 'Aftermath' section looks a bit NPOV. The Canadian troops did in fact conduct themselves very well, on the whole.

Well yes. As Vokes says. I am not sure that I see a POV issue in flagging up that Vokes praised the generally good behaviour of his troops and acknowledged Friesoythe and felt, forty years after the event, "[a] feeling of no great remorse over the elimination of Friesoythe." It seems to accurately reflect his views. We may consider them contradictory, but I don't think that I editorialise that in.

Although you and he may have got an argument on your POVs from the 1945 inhabitants of Sogel, Friesoythe and Garrel.

• " Vokes heard the appeal against his death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" - should 'his' be 'the' here? It would be odd for Vokes to handle an appeal against a sentence he handed down.

You are correct, and changed. In my defence, Vokes heard the appeal, and confirmed the death sentence. Later, in the bureaucratically different position of the senior Canadian officer (remaining) in theatre, he heard the final appeal and overruled his earlier decision[!] So technically/pedantically he was hearing the appeal against his earlier decision. Which is where "his" crept in from. But a reader doesn't need to know all that.

Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D. thanks for the copy edit. Your points above addressed. I agree re point two and will have a search around. German units had also committed well-publicised massacres of Canadian prisoners in Normandy less than a year before, and I don't suppose that helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: New section inserted as discussed. It could probably do with a fairly hard look over. Let me know what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick: Thanks once again for your help all along with this article. Any more suggestions or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this at Milhist ACR, and have reviewed the changes since then. I have a few comments:

• suggest "attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe" also, as they are advancing into north-west Germany, "German" town of Friesoythe is redundant

True. Done.

• "the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's) captured the town" also in the body when first introducing the battalion

Done.

• suggest "Forty years afterwardslater"

Done.

• in the infobox, "Photograph A Stirton, Library and Archives Canada" isn't required in the caption, it just needs to be on the image description page for attribution, same with the later photo

That wasn't how I read it, but so long as you're sure. (You need to tell that to all of the reviewers who insist that I add "from an illuminated manuscript by Froissart" to images from the 14th C.) Done.

• in the infobox, given this involves the destruction of the town, a result of "Canadian victory" seems incongruous, perhaps "Destruction of the town" would be better?

I'm going for both. OK by you?

• "Over the following six months they overran much of western Germany"

Done. Although that was deliberate. Surely they overran all of western Germany? (Or near enough. Plus parts of southern and central Germany.)

• for "although this was in breach of the Hague Conventions" I would expect a more specialised source than Briddiscombe on the legality of reprisals under the law of armed conflict as it applied at the time. Briddiscombe is fine for the description of the manual, but the legal issue needs a legal source

I will see what I can find and get back to you.

• "than any other Canadian unitformation" in the Commonwealth context a corps, division or brigade is a formation, a battalion is a unit

Done.

• in general, I think there is an over-reliance on Briddiscombe for discussion of laws of armed conflict issues in the context section, these matters should be cited to specialist law of armed conflict literature, in preference to a book on the Nazi resistance to invasion, regardless of its obviously academic status

Biddiscombe seems a reliable enough source to me - [2] - and this work was his PhD thesis at LSE - [3] - so it will have received a good kicking.

I'm not saying it is unreliable, just that a better source would be preferred on the laws of armed conflict issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. Well I will dig into the sources Biddiscombe uses to support this and see what I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The big advantage of Biddiscombe is that he is explicitly discussing the laws of armed conflict as they applied to this and similar incidents. It's fairly difficult to apply more general sources here, given that the laws of armed conflict as they applied in World War II were complex and not always at all sensible (for instance, it appears to have perfectly legal to area bomb cities directly targeting civilians as long as the city was protected by any anti-aircraft defences - this wasn't outlawed until after the war). Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of a search for sources, and haven't been able to find anything comprehensive on the state of play in WWII, so I'm dropping this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)→1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)

Done.

• "The paratroopers repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment"→"The paratroopers repelled an attack by the 1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)"

Done.

• resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders→resumption of the attack by the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

Done

• "Vokes' executive officer" generally this would mean his GSO1 (head of the operations staff), I assume we are talking about whomever "Mac" was?

That was my assumption, but I am using the nomenclature of the source.

It's just a bit odd, because XOs weren't a thing in Commonwealth armies (I think they were in the US Army). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit conflict. I have rephrased and resourced. Hopefully it is now both more accurate and easier to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Algonquin Regiment→1st Battalion, The Algonquin Regiment, also, were these battalions all part of the same brigade, if so, which one?

Done.

I believe so. I will check. Why? Because that should be mentioned if so?

Yes, if they were all part of the one brigade I would say so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that they weren't, but I have included details of the main divisional components, largely via footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• who is Mark Zuehlk? historian/author?

Oops. Added

• "the appeal against histhe death sentence"

Done. (But see above under similar point from Nick.

• there are a couple of 13-digit ISBNs with missing hyphens

Replaced with what it actually says in the books.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks, that is great. More sloppiness than usual from me, so thanks for being patient with it. All points addressed; a couple I need to research and come back on. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for sources on the one outstanding point, and haven't been able to find anything much, so I'm moving to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little copy edit from a fresh set of eyes:

• Vokes' executive officer convinced him Vokes' → Vokes's MOS:POSS, or rephrase.

Done. Always something new to learn from the MoS.

There's a lot of style variance on that in English; sometimes the final s is written and not pronounced, sometimes it's pronounced and not written. MOS includes it for consistency.

• Other soldiers fanned out down side streets, throwing phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers into buildings. Could "made from petrol containers" be parentheisized or struck? Or would it work any better as: throwing phosophorous grenades or petrol containers, improvised into Molotov cocktails, into buildings. Come to think of it, that should probably be and rather than or if the soldiers collectively threw both kinds of devices.

What is the objection? Striking it loses the information that what was being thrown was very considerably nastier than a "standard" Molotov cocktail. Your rephrasing, forgive me, to my eye reads clunkily. Happy to rephrase some other way, but it would be nice to know why. "or" changed to 'and'. Although I and a little unsure that "other soldiers" is collective.

Would 'In the side streets, Canadian soldiers threw petrol containers into buildings and ignited them with phosphorus grenades.' work?

I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with it, I just felt that it might be a bit much to digest and thought there might be potential to make it simpler or clearer. The object of the dependent clause phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers is a bit long and creates a lot of separation between throwing and into buildings, and some readers might pause at its construction. The alternative you suggested is much better (I might strike Canadian as assumed). From the original phrasing, I'd thought that the petrol containers had their own improvised ignition device and acted on their own as Molotov cocktails; the new phrasing is clearer and makes more sense. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reidgreg Apologies if I am getting touchy. Now that you point it out, even a slow-wit such as myself can see the over long dependent clause. And I was certainly assuming more knowledge of the mechanics of mid-century military arson in a reader than was reasonable. Thanks for poking at it. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need; it is my obligation to explain why a change would be an improvement. I had a laugh at mechanics of mid-century military arson (nice alliteration). Hope you are feeling better.

Thanks Reidgreg. You should see my actual poetry. I am, I think, fairly phlegmatic about the ACR/FAC process; but as the first article I wrote I suspect that I am overprotective about this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Brockhaus Enzyklopaedie, estimates the destruction to be as high as 90 percent. Lose the comma and change: be → have been.

Grr. Thank you. Done.

That's all I noticed that hasn't already been mentioned, above. Thanks again for this great article! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reidgreg. As you know, I always feel happier when you have looked over an article. Your points above addressed, with a query against the second. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a full review, just two quick grammar nits.

"In the event the village was spared."

Probably caught up in editing, but this is a sentence fragment that got cut off somewhere.

• No. It has always been like that, and looks fine to me. However, I have changed the preceding full stop to a semi colon. Does that address your concern?

No, it doesn't, but I'm not sure what the sense of the sentence is, so I'm afraid to fix it myself. A semicolon is equivalent to a full stop, so this is still a fragment. This sets up a hypothetical situation but doesn't resolve it (Conditional sentence). It's like saying "If I went to the laundry." It's unfinished; it needs to be something like "If I went to the laundry, I would retrieve my clothes." So - what happened? Was Garrel spared? If so, I would rephrase along the lines of

... the battalion commander, Wigle's brother-in-law, ordered that "every building which did not show a white flag be fired". Regardless, the village was ultimately spared.

"In the event" replaced with 'Regardless,'.

(talk page stalker) FYI, my dictionary says "in the event" is chiefly British in use. I can see someone misreading that as "In the event that the village was spared" and expect more to follow. North Americans might say "as it turned out", which has the potential to be confusing as well. Is "as it transpired/occurred/happened" any better? "Regardless" works but might seem a little dismissive. My initial reading was that, while perhaps not every building showed a white flag (the record being unspecific on this), that no broad punitive action was taken; also, that the soldiers were put on high alert but didn't meet opposition. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reidgreg, I was puzzled as to why SnowFire wanted me to change the sentence in a way which didn't seem to change its meaning but seemed to me to be clumsier. As Canadian English is not my strong suit I made the change, but now I understand why. The original is unambiguous in British English, but clearly doesn't travel well. How about 'Before it could be carried out the order was countermanded and the village was spared.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if that's what the sources say that happened, then yes. I'd hope most Canadians would have understood the original, but for an international readership some would probably have a minor stumble at it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is. I was trying to be succinct, but as you say there is an international audience, so it needs spelling out. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no investigation by Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties. In 2010, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists."

This isn't responsive to the previous sentence. "Didn't bother to investigate" is different from "investigated, but then buried or modified the report." Needs clarification for what Zuehlke was responding to, or else a comment from a historian on the general lack of interest in investigating, or else actual claims a cover-up happened. SnowFire (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I am afraid that I am missing your point. The second sentence you quote isn't especially meant to be responsive to the first; no more does the first sentence you quote respond to the one preceding it. I am aware that the two you quote are communicating different things. I could add to the Zuehlke sentence 'In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists.' but I don't want to as I consider it to be clearly implied. Apologies if I am being slow, but could you elaborate your concern?

• Nothing in the article even raises the possibility of a cover-up, so it's jarring to see a historian saying there's no evidence of one. Who was alleging this to begin with? What is this responding to in the article? It's as if the sentence was:

In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence that the 4th Canadian Armoured was actually the British Guards Armoured Division wearing Canadian uniforms exists."

Wait, what? Were we supposed to think that was a possibility in the first place? Zuehlke needs some clarification here - either add in who alleged a cover-up, or clarify what Zuehlke meant. (That there was no malice in not investigating the matter, I suppose?) . SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Understood. (I think.) It is a couple of years since I wrote that, but rereading Zuehlke he is responding directly to the official history's summary. (Much as you had surmised might be the case.) So I have reworded it and moved it to immediately after this in the article. Better?

• Hi SnowFire. Thanks for dropping by and for the comments. Both responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: Further responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says, "During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier and it was rumoured that he had been killed by a civilian" (emphasis added). Should this "and" be a "but"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weell. I could argue it both ways, but frankly, I am not sure it is that important. I have changed to "but", and added "incorrectly".

• The lead says the town was "substantially destroyed." Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed. This is a key point, so the lead ought to be and could be explicit about it without saying much at all. For example, the town's buildings were substantially destroyed leaving X former inhabitants as refugees. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this can be, reasonably, misread. The text reads "it was substantially destroyed"; why might a reader think that that involved any loss of life? If it weren't clear enough, it is in the context of "ordered that the town be razed ... and it was substantially destroyed" which to my reading makes it even clearer. Could you elaborate on how you think "Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed"?

Well, if you raze a house, it's kind of significant whether anyone was inside. Hiroshima and Dresden were razed, and a lot of people got killed as a result. The body of this article says, "During the fighting around Friesoythe and its aftermath, ten civilians from the town" were killed. Presumably that includes both the fight to take the town plus the subsequent action to raze it. This sort of info would be very relevant in the lead regardless of whether it was clearing up any misimpression, in order to help put this incident in proper perspective, and/but I do think it also clears up a potential misimpression because if Godzilla were to step on just about any town in the world, a lot of people would be killed, whereas a lot of people were not killed during this razing (perhaps because the houses were cleared before they were razed or because most inhabitants had already evacuated, or whatever). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant: OK. Adding something on civilian losses to the lead seems reasonable. But bear in mind that it is not known how any of them died. They could have been killed in the first attack; during the second; during the razing; some or all may have been executed by the German paratroopers; some may have died of natural causes. I have tweaked the lead. And tweaked the paragraphing while I was there. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says, "There has been no investigation by Canadian authorities of the event." Normally, a lead should avoid saying what has not happened, or what has not been done, or what has not been said, because such things are always infinitely numerous and picking them out requires judgment and opinion. It would be much better to say something like, X called for an investigation by Canadian authorities but to no avail. Otherwise, it just sounds like a Wikipedia editor thinks an investigation might be wise, or should have been done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Removed.

• The lead paragraph is kind of long. I would suggest inserting a new sentence after the first sentence, and then breaking off the rest into a new paragraph. The new sentence could briefly say why the event was (or is) noteworthy, e.g. this was one of only X towns known to have been razed by Canadian (or allied) troops during that year.

It is only seven short to medium length sentences long. However, happy to split it, which I have done. I can't add the text you suggest as it is not in the main article. And it's not there because I don't have a source which says that. If you have one then sharing it would be much appreciated.

This isn’t an area in which I have expertise. However, at the article talk page User:Nick-D said “while it was unusually cold-blooded, similar events occured across Germany....” Something like that would be great in the lead paragraph if it can be backed up by a reliable source. Of course, without a reliable source, it should not go in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant: Sorry, missed this. Yes, the article details at least a couple of others. There was Sogel for a start, the Americans were bad for this, especially Patton (mentioned) and the French worse. So I have added a sentence to the lead. And re-tweaked the paragraphs! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Many thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been persuasively addressed, flaws in the article have been redressed, and the opposite of a dressing-down is appropriate: I support FA status for this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi all. I was wondering if I could have permission to post another nomination. I am painfully aware that this one hasn't attracted a character's worth of review for a month, so if your view is that I should be scaring up further reviewers for here, rather than thinking about my next one, I would entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I think we're at a stage where it'd be fair for you to start another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, Reidgreg, and SnowFire:, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add from me; my lack of a support vote is to avoid bias as I've advised on this article for a while. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just doing passing grammar nits - as noted that was not a review, and my later silence should not be taken as code for "I disapprove but don't want to say so." If there is a desire from the coordinators for another pair of eyes on some specific aspect I can take a look, but otherwise happy to stand back and let the article presumably be promoted. SnowFire (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: note that Nick hasn't edited since 26 December. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's out of town, it was really a courtesy ping. I'll aim to go through this one again sometime tonight my time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to promote but I think we can improve the opening...

The Razing of Friesoythe took place on 14 April 1945 during the Western Allies' invasion of Germany towards the end of World War II. -- Bit of a mouthful but gets the key points across so okay.

In mid-April the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, advancing into north-west Germany, attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe. -- With this we've mentioned German(y) three times in two sentences, I think we can safely lose "advancing into north-west Germany".

"advancing into north-west Germany" chopped.

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada captured the town. -- Nothing wrong with this per se but then...

During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier; but it was incorrectly rumoured... -- What battalion? According to the link the Argylls is a regiment. Also no need for a semi-colon before the "but" -- a comma would do fine, perhaps even nothing at all.

I'm assuming that the regiment/battalion query is rhetorical. (Let me know if not.) I have amended the opening paragraph to both, I think, flow better and cover this point. If that doesn't work for you, how about if I replace "the battalion's commander" with 'the Argylls' commander'. Would that be comprehensible to a reader without '(the Argylls)' being inserted after the battalions first mention in the previous sentence? (The mini-paragraphed lead happened during FAC.)

Semi colon removed. It accreted during the FAC process.

Tks Gog, yeah we needed to identify the Argylls as a battalion because we hadn't when it was first mentioned (you have now, tks) and anyone hovering over the link would have seen it identified as a regiment ("regiment" means different things in different armies but it's not synonymous with "battalion" in my experience). Anyway it's all good now AFAIC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Your points above all addressed. One with a query. (I hope that my comment re Nick wasn't taken as a nag, it wasn't intended as.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A place-marker. I'll be back with comments shortly if the review is still open. Tim riley talk 20:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. A few very minor quibbles:

• Allied tactics

• You and I, Gog, often agree to differ over what should and shouldn't have Wiki-links, but I really do think linking "Canadian formation" is decidedly WP:OVERLINK; in fact if I were Canadian I'd be a bit miffed to think my country was supposed to need a blue link, when "British" and "German" don't (and they certainly don't).

I am definitely an opponent of overlinking, and if you look at my responses to CPA-5 - the first reviewer, bless them, above - you will see that I was attempting to hold some sort of line. They requested the link for Canadian - the third bullet point of the page. I have unlinked it, and hopefully this will not cause CPA-5 to withdraw their support.

It's non-negotiable, really. The MoS (WP:OL) specifically says don't link major countries. Any editor maintaining that Canada is not a major country (I don't think Donald Trump edits Wikipedia – he's not smart enough) should take it up with Mr Trudeau. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle for Sögel

• "a number of houses in the centre of Sögel" – "a number of" is a woolly phrase, that tells your readers nothing very much. A few? A lot? Some?

I entirely agree Tim, and would urge you to complain to the editors of the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War from which it is quoted. Damn slippery folk these military historians. If you suspect that this is a euphemism for "we blasted the hell out of the centre of the town, but no hard feelings, eh?", then I couldn't possibly comment.

Ah! Point taken. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Destruction of Friesoythe

• "The author Max Hastings" – second time we've been introduced to him and his job title

The dangers of dynamic editing. Fixed.

• Civilian casualties and damage

• I don't feel in the least strongly about it, but "percent" (twice) is, I think, more usually given as "per cent" in BrE.

You are no doubt correct. Changed.

• Aftermath

• The Lincoln and Welland Regiment – linked twice in successive sentences.

One can have too much of a good thing? For a total of three in the main article, and I have been inconsistent in capitalising their name. Corrected.

• "panzerfaust" – surely needs a capital letter?

Opinion is divided, but much to my surprise an initial capitalisation seems to be favoured by scholars. (If not by the source from which I drew the account.) So changed.

• Post-war

• "the death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" – clunky false title.

Ah. Changed to "Kurt Meyer, a convicted German war criminal". Better?

Much. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "an attempt at a cover up" – the OED hyphenates the noun "cover-up"

I swear that the editors of the OED get some sort of thrill out of using hyphens. Dashed.

Nothing of any great consequence there. A sorry tale, scrupulously told. Well referenced and illustrated, carefully balanced and well proportioned. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 21:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dropping by Tim. A sad tale indeed. If this was a normal fighting day for a Canadian division, one gets some idea of how dire war is. Your comments addressed. Amazing how much slop gets through to such a late stage. And thank you for your generous words. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2019 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about a television spin-off to the 2000 movie The Emperor's New Groove. It aired for two seasons from 2006 to 2008 on the Disney Channel. In it, Kuzco is required to attend the public high school, Kuzco Academy, before he can become the emperor of the Inca Empire. Episodes use physical comedy and often break the fourth wall. Although the critical response was mixed, the cast did receive awards and nominations for their work. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "In it, Kuzco is required to attend" - this reads too sudden in my opinion. I suggest rewording it to something along the lines of "The show centers on the character Kuzco who is required to attend".

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for fixing my above edit for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "disguises herself as the school's principal in an attempt to cause him to fail his classes so she can become empress herself" - by "herself" I assume that they are both competing against each other for the same thing - an emperor (male or female). Is that the case here?

• I have removed "herself". The word "empress" is always used in connection to the character "Yzma" as opposed to "emperor" with "Kuzco". I hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was the first television series to have a debut across these four platforms; it was" - to avoid "it was... it was" I suggest replacing the second "it" with an "and".

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Emperor's New School received a mixed response; Malina's representation was one criticism" - I would like to see what aspects of the show received positive response.

• There were a few points that received praise (the transition from film to television, the animated backgrounds, the humor, and the voice acting), but I am uncertain about putting these points into the lead because they were made by individual commentators and would not necessarily reflect a consensus from an overall critical commentary. I included the Malina criticism in the lead for instance because it was brought in two reviews. However, I would be more than happy to add something to the lead about the positive response, but I just wanted to explain my perspective first. I could be completely wrong. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jeanne Spreier, writing for The Dallas Morning News, said the show based its humor in one-line jokes" - shouldn't this be based "on"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to Disney Channels' Worldwide president Gary Marsh" - this should be Disney Channels Worldwide's president in my opinion.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Walt Disney Company first approached Gannaway about the series "a few years" after" - I am failing to understand the significance of "a few years" being in quotes.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comments so far, and apologies for some of the silly mistakes in the article. Hope you had an awesome Halloween and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the rest of the article, and don't have anything else to quibble about. This is a nice work. Support. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support and the review. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox, for example the credit for Scharlach, don't appear to be cited anywhere

• Revised. I believe that everything should be cited now. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the release details remain unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am assuming you are referring to the picture and audio format parts? I just want to double-check first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed those bits of information as I cannot find a third-party citation for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FN2: date doesn't match source

• Are you refraining to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette citation? From what I can see the date in the article (January 26, 2006) already matches the date in the source (January 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source says January 25. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have checked the source again, and I do not see where it says January 25. Under the byline (at least on my end), it says (JAN 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very odd - definitely says January 25 under the byline on my side. Perhaps it adjusts based on local time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is very strange. Next to the date, it has the time (12:00 AM) on my end. Does it have a different time for you? What would you recommend that I do for this? Apologies for all the back-and-forth on my part, and thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, it is a time-zone issue - mine gives 11PM. Let's just leave as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. I will definitely make sure to remember this for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FN5: should include page number, and is this an authorized publication?

• I believe that Animation Magazine is an authorized and reliable source. I have added the page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to the republication on Scribd. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be fine, but I have replaced the citation style with the one for journals and took out the url to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FN14 should include agency

• Is there any particular reason why the agency should be cited here? I was just wondering because I do not cite the agency for any of the other newspaper sources in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are other cases where there is an agency, it should also be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am really confused by this. I have never had to cite agencies when using newspaper citations in previous FACs. Is there any particular reason why this is necessary? I hope that I do not sound rude, but I was just curious about this because it was different from my prior FAC experiences. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the case of FN14, the agency credit stands in place of the author credit in providing appropriate attribution. More broadly, technically the documentation for ((cite news)) states it should be included when different from work and publisher, although when there's an author named I tend not to fuss with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me. I have added the publication agency to the citation. Apologies for the confusion on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FN15 should italicize work title

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FN16: page?

• I used the preview from the following GoogleBooks source, which does not use page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case suggest including a location parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a location parameter? Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Never mind, the book does not use page numbers, but it does include an index that has the page numbers so I was able to locate it and add it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FN19: La is part of the surname, not given name. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Apologies for the second ping. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I responded to your points. I am only confused by two points (the publication for Reference 2 and the publication agency inclusion). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in amazing shape, so I won't have many comments. Here are some for a start:

• Though I prefer "show" over series, I still think "show" is informal.

• Just wanted to check before making changes. Would you prefer if I replaced all the instances of "show" with "series"? Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says the series received mixed reviews, but the "Critical reception" doesn't use the word "mixed". Please maintain consistency.--Kailash29792 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have no further comment. I'm pretty sure there are other guys to do proofreading. Also, please consult with others whether "show" needs to be replaced with "series". It was just my personal view, in the way that "movie" is often discouraged in favour of "film". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support. I will go through the article shortly and replace the "show" instances with "series". I do not have a preference either way, but I understand your point and I might as well do it anyway. Let me know if you need any help with any of your projects. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. Overall, there's quite a bit of good content and writing in the article, and is within reach of FA quality. Some comments:

• "Malina's representation was one criticism". Not sure about use of "criticism" here. Maybe "one thing that was criticized".

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be nice to have more variety of sentence structures in the second and especially the third paragraph of the lead. Currently there are a lot of subject-verb-object sentences so it feels a little choppy.

• I have attempted to fix this, but please let me know if further revision is necessary.

• "However, episodes focus more on Kuzco learning life lessons". Here I'd suggest something other than "episodes". Maybe "the series" or "the story arc" or such.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The second half of the first paragraph of "Premise and characters" could also benefit from more variety of sentence structure. The last four sentences are all s-v-o and the last two start with "Her".

• I have attempted to revise this, but please let me know if more works is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite their strained relationship". Maybe this needs to be qualified. How is it strained?

• I have removed it as I think the "contrasting lifestyles" part covers it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "In one instance, Pacha trains Kuzco for a physical education class". I wasn't sure if this was meant to be an example of "school projects". If so, I'm not sure that a physical education class would normally be considered a school project. But if this is not meant to be an example of a school project, and is just another way that Pacha helps Kuzco, then OK.

• It was meant to be an example of one of the school projects. I have changed it to "school assignments" to hopefully address that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and is one of the few characters who scolds him about his attitude". Is it clear by this part of the main text how his attitude is bad? (I didn't see it but I may have missed it.) If not, maybe this needs to be clarified for the reader here.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other supporting characters include the Royal Records Keeper and Mr. Moleguaco". The reader can probably imagine to a degree what the role of the Royal Records Keeper might be, but is there anything that would be worthwhile to mention here about Mr. Moleguaco?

• Clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although it is a sequel, Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality, causing some critics to associate him with the phrase "it's all about me". It's not clear to me the relationship between "Although it is a sequel" and "Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality", nor why "it's all about me" is relevant to the question of sequels.

• That is a good point. I removed the "it's all about me" part. It was a slogan from the first film so it is not important for this article. However, I do think it is beneficial to mention how Kuzco's character development was ignored for the series, and I have tried to revise that part to better address it. I have seen a few people question how the show could be a sequel since it ignores this plot line from the film completely while also making casual references to the film. Continuity-wise, it is very weird. Please let me know what you think though. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, the show does include reference to the original film". I'm not sure this works well as is. There's one example before this of the ending of the film being ignored, but I don't think readers are going to assume none of the story points in the film were kept. So it probably goes without saying that there is going to be some coherency between the film and TV series. Maybe you can salvage this last sentence of the paragraph but I'm not sure the exact best angle for it; also, if you do keep it, maybe flesh out what "Kronk's spinach puffs" refers to.

• To be fair, there are two examples before that sentence (the Yzma being human part as the second one), but I think the main issue is with the transition being too strong. I have tried to revise this pat to be clearer, but please let me know what you think. I think it is beneficial to note what elements/gags were kept in the show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review. Apologies for the silly mistakes. I still have a lot to learn about being a better writer, but your reviews always make the articles stronger. Hopefully, I can grow more as a writer in the future. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider shaking up the last two sentences of the lead, which feel a bit stale. This is what I came up with, although I don't know for sure that it's a big improvement (maybe if I had more time I could come up with something better, but unfortunately I don't): "The Emperor's New School received some critical praise, as well as Annie and Daytime Emmy Awards for its cast and crew; negative reviews mentioned elements including sexist objectification of Malina." If you don't like this particular suggestion, maybe at least try to twist the sentences around for a bit of variety in sentence structure. Another option could be to get rid of the last sentence. As it is, we don't find out in the lead whether they were important awards or possibly minor no-name awards. And removing the last sentence would help with the repetitiveness of sentence structure at the end. But if there's a good way to keep mention of the awards (my suggestion above or another way), that could be good too. Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comment. I was also uncertain about that part as I thought the awards/nominations sentence sounded a little too tacked-on. I have used a variation on your suggestion, but clarified that Kitt was the only one to actually win any awards. Let me know what you think, and thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kuzco is often turned into animal by a potion from Yzma's lab so he cannot finish a school assignment." Should it be "animals", "potions", "assignments" in the plural, because it says "often"? Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. This is a running theme for many many episodes so the plural would be more appropriate. That part was a later addition (to give a better context to the secret lab mentioned later) so I admittedly did not review it as much as I should. Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kronk is Yzma's henchman, and poses as a student and Kuzco's friends". This means he disguises as multiple friends? It's a bit confusing (I was confused at first). If there's a way to write it so it's clearer, that would be great. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The "friends" part was a typo of "friend", but I think it is confusing to add to two descriptives "student" and "friend" so I have consolidated to "Kuzco's classmate", which I think is a more apt description for his paper-thin disguise. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for interrupting your review. I will refrain from editing the article to avoid any potential conflicts and give you the space/time to best review it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It may just be me, but I don't know what a "heritage property" is in terms of a TV show, and I couldn't find an answer with a very quick Google search (maybe with a little bit longer one I could have, but I gave up soon). Can you wiki-link it to anything, or would you consider rewording it, if possible? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The "heritage property" phrase just refers to the fact that this was a spin-off of a pre-existing Disney property. I had originally quoted it as I thought it was noteworthy, but upon further reflection, it does seem quite repetitive as I think that information is already well-established in the article elsewhere so I removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series is set in a school to emphasize Kuzco's lack of social etiquette." How about something like "The series is set in a school because the writers/creators felt this environment would provide good opportunities to explore Kuzco's lack of social etiquette." I think this would be clearer than just "emphasize". Moisejp (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised. Your suggestion is far better, and I think I was getting too caught up in going for conciseness in that sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "he said the main difference was it is led by a comedic character, a role usually given to sidekicks". Maybe "supporting character" would be more encyclopedic than "sidekicks", but then you would have "character...character". Could you possibly tell me what Gannaway's exact words were for this bit? The sentence is not so bad as it is, but I feel like maybe it could be made slightly tighter. If you could tell me what he says, I might have ideas. Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the full reference. A Scribd user uploaded the entire Animation Magazine issue, and I could access the specific "Out of the Inca Well" article while putting together the article and revising it during the GAN and prior to the FAC. However, I lost access to the entire issue for some reason; I apparently need a Scribd account to view the article. The basic idea of Gannaway's statement was that other animated shows often used supporting characters for the humorous bits while keeping the lead more grounded, and Kuzco was the opposite since he was a comedic character that was the lead. I did struggle a bit with revising this so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. I could request for the article at the Resource Request if necessary so I can provide the exact quote. Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "While Gannaway acknowledged viewers might initially dislike Kuzco because of his attitude". Is there any descriptive word you can add before "attitude" to add precision to what kid of attitude it was? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still referring to the same self-centered/narcisstic aspects discussed earlier. I did not put a descriptor here because I was uncertain if it was getting too repetitive through the article. I have added one though per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "she said singing provided "an added and vital layer" to Yzma". Is there anything more in the source you can add to flesh this point out? It feels a little weak and insubstantial as is.

• This is the full quote from the source: ("I loved every minute of singing Yzmopolis. Yzma is a wonderful and exciting character. Being able to give her the added dimension of a singing voice gives my character an added and vital layer. May Yzma sing forever and often!") I think it was notable at the time of drafting and revising the article prior to this FAC, but upon further reflection, I would have no issue with removing it completely if necessary. Just wanted to get your point of view on it before removing it though just to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I ended up removing this part altogether, as upon further reflection, it seems rather trivial and not necessary for a reader's understanding of the show as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was the first series to debut across these four television platforms". I'm not sure precisely what this means. Does it mean the four TV platforms had previously showed lots of old shows, but this was the first new show that any of them aired? Or does it mean it was the first time that there was a show in common across all four platforms? (Or maybe it means something else?) If you can, would it be possible to clarify this in the text? Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The four networks did have original programming prior to this show. I would not be surprised if the networks ran the same shows at one point in time. The difference with this is that The Emperor's New School was pushed on all four networks at a similar time rather than premiering on a single network and later being syndicated or shown on other networks as re-runs. That is the impression that I get from the sources as it is referring more to Disney's promotional strategy for the series to maximize its visibility/exposure or run a "super-saturation" campaign as one outlet put it. However, I revised the "first time" part out as I think it is unnecessarily confusing and just kept to how the show debuted on these four networks on these days instead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series was part of Toon Disney's "Great Toon Weekend" programming block in January 2007." Feels weak and likely removable. But if you'd rather keep it, may I suggest in the previous paragraph just after where the times/days shown are listed.

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider whether the order of the points in these two paragraphs could be improved. They seem to jump around a lot. For example, "Each episode runs for 30 minutes[7][9] and carries a "suitable for all ages" TV-G parental rating." feels out of place, as what comes before and after it is about the days/times/dates when it was aired. Moisejp (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point. I have attempted to revise the section to flow more cohesively, but let me know if further work needs to be done. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look at the Reception section in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although he disliked the series, author David Perlmutter spotlighted Kitt and Warburton for their performances". I'm not sure whether "spotlighted" is correct here, but if you're sure it is, please keep it. (I'm not saying it necessarily isn't okay, just saying I don't know, so just be sure for yourself you're certain it's good.)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "he was also uncertain that the school setting could sustain a series without growing monotonous". This sounds more like a question than a criticism. It sounds like this writer was speculating early in the series that future episodes might not be interesting. I haven't read the source, but depending on what the source says, maybe the nuance can be changed to something conveying that the early episodes were only mildly interesting, and then put what you wrote as kind of an after-point. Again, I don't know if that's what she says (sorry, I don't have time to read the source right now). Or if there's not much to work with on this point in the source, I guess just decide for yourself whether what you currently have for this point is strong enough for the criticism paragraph; I don't have a really strong opinion, and feel it could maybe go either way.

• Removed. After re-reading the article, it is more speculation on the writer's part as opposed to criticism. Here is the part from the source regarding this: "While the opening episode packs plenty of punch, it will be interesting to see how far Gannaway can stretch the series' rather basic plot about Kuzco's efforts to graduate through numerous episodes without getting stale and repetitive." Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "a focal point of Common Sense Media's Pam Gelman". Maybe "a focal point of Common Sense Media's Pam Gelman's review" would be better.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Malina's figure-hugging clothing emphasizes her attractiveness over her intelligence". Would it be worthwhile to spell out just a little more explicitly why this is considered bad? I understand what you mean, but maybe if it was a little more explicitly explained, it would be all the clearer.

• Revised to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my second read-through. I'll try to do a quick third read-through in the next couple of days and address at that time any remaining questions you had in response to my last batch of comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I read MacPherson's review, and it's mostly quite positive. It may be misleading to include her comment about a minor confusing point in the paragraph that begins with "Some critics had a negative response to the series." I hope it doesn't sound like I'm telling you to cut, cut, cut everything, but if it was me, this MacPherson bit is another sentence I would strongly consider cutting.

• I have removed the sentence. It is best to avoid misrepresenting the source in any way so I agree that removing it is important. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Awards and nominations sections feels a bit repetitive (repetitive sentence order, and the same awards names repeated multiple times). It's all summarized in the table below anyway, so I'd like to suggest you can trim to the prose. How would you feel about combining the two Annie Awards sentences into one, removing unnecessary details (maybe like the specific episodes), and is there a way to get rid of the final "35th Daytime Emmy Awards" in the last sentence? Or (*actually I think this might be an even better idea) another way to condense might be to combine all of Kitt's awards into one sentence at the start (again, hopefully finding unnecessary details to leave out). Then maybe you could find a way to combine Warburton's, Parkins', and DiCicco's nominations into a succinct second sentence. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cut down on that section. The table was a late addition. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm ready to support now. Looks good. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for taking the time to do this review and for your patience with everything. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead looks fine, perhaps a little long. It could use more diversity in sentence, but (after one typo correction) seems to be written well.

• Thank you. I could try to trim the lead down, but I would be uncertain of which parts would be best removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will leave this up to you. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have gone through the lead to cut back somewhat, but I am open to further suggestions by you and other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence On his birthday, he learns about this educational requirement of his trust fund and is evicted from the palace. Seems awkward – could this be rephrased?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, this works well now. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, to prevent him from graduating and become empress is a little strange – it could be “to prevent him from graduating so she can become empress”

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also good :) Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• With the sentence Although it is a sequel, Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality, causing some critics to associate him with the phrase "it's all about me, how are the two parts related? Why would his characterization change in a sequel? Is there more from the source to associate these?

• I had revised this section based on a reviewer's comments above so I think it is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is clear now, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of which film (New Groove or Kronk) is Yzma turned into a cat? It’s not clear to those who know nothing.

• Same as the above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, great. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Speier at any point relate the American high school setting with the fact it’s sent in Incan times? That would be useful to mention with her initial comments at the bottom of the premise and characters section.

• She does not; she just says that the show has very American attributes. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's ok, then - we don't want to turn it into OR. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No cast section? Not even an overview with wikilinks to the pages?

• I honestly see no reason for including a cast section. All of the information about the characters and cast members are already laid out in the "Premise and characters" section and "Production" section, respectively, so I think it would be rather repetitive. I have done a similar approach to my other FACs on television show articles. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If it works - and there were only two seasons on a kidcom, so a cast table wouldn't add a lot. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t think the word “another” adds any value to …developed The Emperor's New School as "another heritage property" for its television scheduling. I’m not sure quotation marks need to be used at all.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs some consistency in tense at the end of the first paragraph in Production – saying the directors “are” vs. the writers “were”; pick one.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Not sure if others will pick up on the present tense when it's definitively over (not still writing/directing; continuous present used for plot), I might ask if it is fine. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point that I did not consider. It is always good to ask for a second or third opinion. I actually think past tense would make more sense so I have adjusted it. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In Production, the word ters is used. What is this supposed to be?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Teachers - thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The clause saying …he attributed the main difference to it having a comedic character as the lead rather than a sidekick is bizarre; perhaps it could be more simply “…he described the main difference as being lead by a comedic character, a role usually given to sidekicks.”

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - I feel I should expand on why I picked this up: the first part ("attributed the main difference to it having") was grammatically all over the place, and didn't fit with the preceding clause. It could be understood, but stood out and needed re-reading. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, and that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The cast notes could get at least their own subsection in Production, as it’s otherwise a bit of a jump.

• I do not think a subsection is necessary, but I will think about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I like what you've done, breaking the whole article up. I will leave comments on whether headers are apt to others. It helps with flow, and somewhat consolidates casting and characterization (not characters) in one place (rather than spread across all sections). Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Echoing others’ comments, the writing style for the Reception section is quite basic.

• I am not entirely sure whar you mean. Could you be more specific? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I expanded a bit more below. The sentence structure is simple and repeated, and little has been done to create flow from each to the next. It's more like a list of who has reviewed it and a comment. If style could be improved - changing up structure, use of connectives, expanding the comments to give a description of the review, it would be much better.

• Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I always had difficulty with these kinds of sections. I will work on that now, and will revisit the sources to see if there is any additional information I can mine from them. I will respond here when I am done with that copy-edit. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that the Critical reception could use an introduction summarizing the breadth of reviews before the paragraphs (which are split just down positive vs negative)

• Could you give an example of what you mean? The reviews touch on a lot of different points, and I cannot see a single common theme that could be used as an introductory sentence without WP:SYNTH concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing so much to SYNTH as just a sentence saying "There were several reviews, with critics highlighting both good and bad aspects of the show." Because at the moment, the first sentence in the section reads that it got positive reviews, without indication that it also got negative ones until the reader reaches that paragraph. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see. I misread your suggestion. Apologies for that. I will incorporate that suggestion during my copy-edit of that section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m also surprised there’s not more depth to review coverage – do the critics not discuss certain elements, and if there are some common themes (beyond the already-included Malina criticism), could they be important to include? I point to other GA+ television show reception sections for reference, they are generally much more extensive than a list of “X from Y thought it was good and said ‘Z’.” Wikivoice can also be used to discuss what critics say rather than just quote them.

• Not really. There is not a common theme in the positive reviews. The only common theme that I could see in the negative reviews was that it was inferior to the film. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That could be potentially written into a paragraph. Any other things from individual reviews could be used to expand it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an awards table be beneficial?

• I do not think so because everything is addressed in the prose, and I do not think there were enough awards to warrant a table. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the prose reads clear enough to you. Remembering that a table is an added illustration, not a replacement. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the doodle image add anything to the article? The only thing I can think of is art style (because doodle on lined paper is quite easy to picture) – at which point it should be moved to the more appropriate section.

• I think the picture helps the reader understand what is being referenced beyond the prose. While the idea of a doodle on lined paper could be easy to picture, I think it is helpful to include the image to show the art style to the reader. I have included in its present position because it is by the paragraph about these recurring gags. I do not know what you mean by "the more appropriate section"? Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just remove it altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestion would have been to move it to the section on the art style; the idea of a schtick where the character doodles is clear, and the image wasn't needed to illustrate that. The art style, yes, and I think that's covered in production. But I also concur that it may have been one image too many for a shorter article. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Without doing a source review, I think there are definitely areas for quite substantial work. Has this had a peer review before? For a Disney, U.S., television show, the article seems to not have as much coverage as I would expect, either. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I really never use the peer review process because I honestly never get a response. I feel like the peer review process is very hit or miss. This is a Disney show, but it was never a high-profile one in the same way as a Lizzie McGuire or a Hannah Montana. I am pretty positive that I have found a majority (if not all) of the sources that cover this show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then I can't argue with that; there may be more coverage soon now that the U.S. has got Disney+, but if that's all the sources, that's all the sources! Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do another search once I get the reception section copy-edit done just to make sure. There may be more coverage given the Disney+ launch, and I will be inventive with my search parameters to make sure I can catch as much as possible in case anything slipped through the cracks. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review so far. I believe that I have commented on everything. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses! Comments added above, but most of my original comments had been addressed well. Have a nice weekend, too. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review so far. I have tried to revise the reception section, but let me know if more work is needed. I have also added an awards/nominations table to the article. I could not find any additional reviews while doing another search.

• I will give it a read later! Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: I gave the section a little ce, but it was much better, well done! I now support Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. The c/e and support are greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have a quick question. The show had an official website that had mini-games, photos, videos, downloads, a way to e-mail the characters, and a quiz. I think this information should be included in an article, but I am having trouble accessing the site. Since it is no longer active, I had to user a website archiver; fortunately, the website has been archived quite a bit, but all of the viable links redirect to this page about having the current version of Flash. I was wondering if you had any insight about this, as this is far outside my area of expertise? Here is the link to the original site. Apologies for the super random question. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't know; have details of the website been covered in news or even an official Disney release or blog? If not, you can only really use an archive link as primary source to sat 'this used to exist'... Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe the website was covered by any third-party websites or an official Disney press release. I was thinking of using the link directly as the primary source. Do you think that would be okay? Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a bit about it to the article. Otherwise, I think I have found all the available sources for the show. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all appropriately licensed, formatted and captioned. FrB.TG (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: @Aoba47: FYI, I have replaced the logo image (link) in the infobox, which had been uploaded by Aoba47, with a high-resolution version I just uploaded to Commons. The text-only logo is too simple to meet the threshold of originality under American copyright law and thus it's public domain. —BLZ · talk 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a review at Aoba47's request. We've worked together before but, for the record to any other interested parties, I prefer to directly copyedit articles myself and then explain the rationale for some of my changes here, in addition to making recommendations or asking questions. If any edits I make don't seem like improvements, or if my reasoning for a change is mistaken, feel free to let me know here and we can work through it. So far I've looked at the lead, which I'll give another run-through after I've read the rest in-depth:

• Thank you for the copy-edits so far! I will go through your comments so far individually if that is okay with you just so that all of the changes/edits are saved correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• I think "spin-off of" is the most natural phrasing (better than "from" or "to").

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiny change, but the addition of a comma in "January 27, 2006, to November 20, 2008". MOS:DATEFORMAT specifies "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation that replaces the comma"—which personally I think looks odd but that's what it calls for.

• I have removed the comma. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, my bad—I think I worded that in a confusing way. I had already made the revision, I was just giving the reason from the MOS because it's a counterintuitive rule imo. The comma is supposed to be there, according to the MOS. The "other punctuation that replaces the comma" would be, for example, a period or semi-colon as part of the natural flow of the sentence, and that's supposed to be the only exception to the rule that the comma always follows the year in a full date. Like I said, I personally think it's a weird rule. It's comma overdose and doesn't scan naturally, but that's apparently the "correct" way. —BLZ · talk 06:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for misreading your comment. I am quite bad at commas so while I agree that it does seem rather odd, it is good to go by the MOS. Thank you for the correction! Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a mention that it's the second spin-off following Kronk's New Groove.

• Thank you for catching this. For some reason, I did not think about Kronk's New Groove as a spin-off, but you are correct, and it is note in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some descriptive language to the summarization of the show's plot, which is supported by the sources and text in the article body, to provide more vivid cues for a reader who may be unfamiliar with the show or its source film. E.g., Kuzco is a "pampered and self-centered teenager", Yzma is "villainous", Kronk is "dim-witted" (a word I've borrowed from the article on Homer Simpson, as I believe it avoids any overly pejorative connotation or suggestions of intellectual disability), etc.

• Thank you for these additions. Since I am very familiar with the series, I had some difficulty approaching this from an outsider's point of view, and I think these additions are very helpful with that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "his family" seemed somewhat ambiguous—Pacha's or Kuzco's? So I've come up with "the villager Pacha and his peasant family," which is slightly redundant but helps clarify whose family. There may be other, more graceful ways to execute this clarification.

• I actually had a similar concern when writing that part so I think your revision improves it. I will try to think of other alternatives, but this seems like the better way of making the information very clear. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As Malina is the show's only major new character and the subject of criticism, I've introduced her as such in a separate sentence rather than listing her in passing with Pacha and fam.

• Thank you for the edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've explained "temporarily filled" by adding the fact that John Goodman returned for the second season—worth signaling in the lead, given Goodman's level of fame (and actorly excellence).

• Good idea. I have also changed this in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Malina was also left out of the cast roll-call, so I added a new sentence mentioning her actor plus guest appearances (Miley Cyrus being particularly worth name-dropping given her subsequent super-fame).

• Whoops. Not sure how I missed that. And thank you for the addition of the guest stars in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've substituted "public high school" with "typical American-style high school". I know the MacPherson article explicitly labels Kuzco Academy a "public high school", but here's why I changed it:

• First: "American-style" or "American" would normally be self-explanatory and unnecessary as a label for a "high school" within a US-produced show. But given the far-flung setting—a cartoonish fantasy version of pre-Colombian Peru (or thereabouts)—I think it's worth emphasizing that it does indeed reflect the modern, American conception of high school. If "public" is retained, "American-style" would still help emphasize the intended meaning to an international readership; while the UK uses "secondary school" instead of "high school" anyway, "public school" means the exact opposite thing there as it does in the US, and "public" may have other meanings to other non-American readers.
• Regardless, I'd also argue for removing "public". The real-world distinction between "public" and "private" schools doesn't seem relevant or even applicable to a fantasy comedy cartoon for children. It's a detail that seems too realistic and specific to mention, perhaps even if it were an official part of in-universe "canon" (which is not clear). I don't believe MacPherson intended to draw this distinction, at least not to the extent that she was making an argument that it is definitely public and not private or otherwise, and probably meant something closer to "typical", i.e. the depiction of Kuzco Academy embodies all the stereotypical traits/tropes that would be expected of virtually any (fictional) American high school setting (albeit, of course, kid-friendly and wholesome—this isn't Riverdale). Besides, a "typical" American high school would tend to connote a public high school anyway as the overwhelming majority of students attend public schools.

• That all makes sense to me. I have added American-style high school to the body of the article to be consistent with the lead, but feel free to remove that if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reworded the sentence about the choice of a high school setting, chiefly because the phrase "was chosen in order to facilitate the exploration of" was clunky. I added a bit about how the setting provided for storylines about everyday challenges of adolescence, derived from this in the body: "Spreier noted the storylines dealt with 'the more common problems of adolescence'". This may fit more gracefully elsewhere in the lead—it comes from critical commentary, not creator statements of intention, and while I don't want to confuse the two I do think it is an important point for summary.

• I think the current placement in the lead makes sense. It is currently part of the critical commentary, but it is not necessarily part of a critic's praise or critique of the show so I do not think it would fit with the lead's last paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "social ineptitude" – Are we sure this is the phrase and link we want to use? It redirects to social skills, which treats its subject in a quite serious context that discusses e.g. alcoholism, mental illness, the autism spectrum, etc. You later refer to his "lack of social etiquette", which seems closer to the mark imo although perhaps still vague. I haven't made a change here, but I wanted to raise the issue now and consider it further as I go.

• I actually did not check the linked article so that was my fault. I agree that is far too serious for the show and Kuzco's characterization. I have put "lack of social etiquette" for now, but I will also think of different options. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other thoughts so far

• "on the iTunes Store" – I'm a little ambivalent here, but I'm leaning toward thinking it's OK to mention its release via the iTunes Store. I think it's OK to mention Disney+, which is owned and operated by Disney and will presumably carry Emperor's New School and most Disney intellectual property in perpetuity; it's the equivalent of a show being Netflix Original Programming. Ordinarily, though, I wouldn't think it's necessary to name a third-party marketplace—especially in the absence of a known arrangement of exclusivity, as there was with e.g. Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy retailing exclusively through Best Buy. However, it is interesting that Emperor's New School does not seem to be available through any other major platforms; it's "currently unavailable" on Google Play, completely absent from Amazon, etc. The show does not seem to have ever been released on DVD (or any other physical media). It also seems probable that Disney's distribution deal with iTunes will expire at some point, since it's widely known that the company is letting its existing distro deals with other streaming services lapse without renewal to achieve true exclusivity through Disney+. That fact actually makes me more inclined to note that the show was downloadable via iTunes, as it soon may be a historical fact: the only place the show had ever been made available before Disney+.

• As you had already said above, I included the iTunes store by name in the article because it was the only way that the show could be viewed before Disney's new streaming service as it never got a physical release. It would be a shame if Disney pulled the show from the iTunes store, but people seem to consume television more through streaming now rather than purchasing episodes or seasons. The times have certainly changed and will certainly continue to change. I can understand your concern as I would not want it to come across as advertising. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant to the above point: do you know of any source stating that the show was not released on DVD? I feel like it's worth mentioning because the digital release via iTunes is more significant in light of the absence of a DVD release. This is one of those devilish counterfactual facts that is sometimes hard to find stated outright, but I think if there's any reliable basis to mention this it would be worth doing.

• That is a good point. For the longest time, I used TVShowsOnDVD.com because it would have entries on television shows without any physical releases and explicitly note that. Unfortunately, that site closed back in 2018, and while a lot of it is available through website archives, I could not find the specific page for this show. I have not been able to find a source about the absence of a DVD release, but as you said, it is more difficult to find a source on the lack of something. I will keep looking though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A May 2017 article in the animation publication Rotoscopers makes an interesting claim about the show: "Tangled: The Series is the first non-preschool program developed from a Disney feature since the 2006 series The Emperor's New School." I think this is noteworthy, given Disney's aggressive focus on video and TV spin-offs since the early 1990s, and helps mark New School's place within the wider historical timeline of Disney production/content strategy. (The Rotoscopers "About Us" page/masthead shows that, although they are a comparatively small operation, the publication has the type of professional structure of editorial oversight that would qualify them as a WP:RS, imo.) —BLZ · talk 01:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the resource. I have added it to the article. Thank you for updating the logo. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brandt Luke Zorn: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to check in and see how the review was progressing so far. Thank you again for taking the time to do this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the delay, I'm going to resume copyedits now. Some quick thoughts on the next subsection:

• No worries. I should be the one apologizing for the ping. There is no rush for the review as it is always best to try and improve the article as much as possible so take all the time you need. Thank you for the copy-edits! Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Story and characters

• "Kuzco is often transformed into an animal by potions from Yzma's lab" – Is there more on this? It follows from the source text, which says "Yzma often concocts potions in her secret lab that will turn Kuzco into an animal so he will fail a task or school assignment". But that source was published to coincide with the premiere. Are there other sources that would help verify this part of the show? I'd also accept your word for it, since you're familiar with the show's content; I rewatched some of the pilot episode on Friday and I know that it's part of that episode's plot, but I don't really know how typical it is of the show's storylines as a whole. And after all, even if the source was published early they had been probably been given some advance material from Disney that would inform them as to the content of later episodes to give readers an idea of what to expect.

• That is a good point. I have looked through the sources again, and I could not find another mention of the potions/animal transformations as a recurring storyline. I had watched a majority of the episodes last year, and from what I can recall, the first season leaned heavily on reusing gags from the film (like the secret lab potions) while the subsequent seasons tried for some more original content/ideas. I have revised the sentence to reflect how this was a recurring plotline in the first seasons (since the source is mostly about the earlier episodes), but please let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do any sources draw the (obvious) connection between this recurrent plot point about being transformed into an animal and the plot of New Groove, which after all is centered on the emperor's transformation into a Llama?

• I could not find any sources that drew this comparison. The show does include a line referring back to Kuzco's llama transformation, which is another piece of evidence that this is a sequel, but articles seem to focus more on other elements related to the film, like Kuzco's personality and emperor status. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a source, Aliaga Serrano (2008), because it had a little additional info about Mr. Moleguaco—namely, because it stated the obvious point that the teacher's name is a pun on "guacamole", although there were some additional small points about the characters that I've incorporated from this source.

• Thank you for adding the source and information. Apologies for missing this while preparing the article for the GAN and FAC. It is always nice to get more sources to improve an article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity and style

• I think something like "Continuity and humor" or "Continuity and comedic style" might be a better title for this section, since "style" alone might be confused with visual/animation style.

• Excellent point. I have used "humor" since it is more concise. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's suggested, but not stated outright, that New School is a sequel to New Groove. I think this should be stated outright for additional clarity, as it's not quite obvious that this is the case. Someone who has seen the film would probably know—to take one reason, Kuzco and Pacha don't know each other at the start of the film, so the show could only be a prequel if both of them suffer memory loss at the end—but the setting and premise ofNew School seems very prequel-ish overall, plus Kuzco seems to be emperor already in New Groove; it's a little confusing why he's trying to earn a position that he already seemed to fully occupy.

• This show definitely has a very strange continuity. While I think the episodes are enjoyable, the contradictory premise prevents me from enjoying it as much as other Disney shows. You are right that Kuzco was very much emperor in New Groove, and we even see him doing official duties in the opening song. Unfortunately, there is not a clear answer on why this is happening plot-wise. It is one of the main inconsistencies with the film. I have added a part about the show being a sequel. Oddly enough, a majority of the sources that I found dance around the fact that this is a sequel and just refer to it as a show connected with the film. Seems like critics/commentators were just as confused. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Found a source (Insider.com) that explicitly refers to the series as a sequel. It's actually even more helpful than that: it says the show "takes place after the events of the film".

It also notes that the series "ended in 2008 after the death of Eartha Kitt, who voiced the villainous Yzma." Do you have anything else on this? It's not out of the question for a series to end following the death of one of its stars. It should be noted anyway—regardless of whether we can definitively prove that Kitt's death was the reason for the show's cancellation, there's no disputing the timing, and this source explicitly makes the connection. —BLZ · talk 22:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the source. I have integrated it into the article. The part about the show's connection with the film is particularly helpful. I did see people talk about Kitt's death as a reason for the show's cancelation, but I was unable track down a reliable source that tied the two explicitly together. I must have missed the source since it was published after I did the research for the article so thank you for bringing it to may attention and apologies for that. Her death was quite sad, but her work seems to live and continue to be appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "whenever Kronk pulls the lever to her secret lab" — almost; it's famously the wrong lever, right?

• Very true lol. I am surprised I missed that one. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series uses physical comedy with a "self-aware" approach." – I think this statement conflates two different things: the show's physical comedy and its humorous self-awareness. These two qualities don't necessarily manifest at the same time, and it should be made more clear that these are two separate aspects.

• Good point. I have revised the sentence to hopefully avoid that, but let me know if it is still not entirely working still. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think "Kuzco stopping a scene" warrants some more explanation. I'd like the see the phrase "breaking the fourth wall" to make it more clear what is happening and why it is self-aware. Some explanation of Kuzco's dual role as both protagonist and narrator would go a long way.

• I have added an additional source, and attempted to break it down a little more clearer. For some reason, I thought I had more explicitly discussed this in the article so that was my mistake. It is still rather rough so I will look at it more in the near future to try and clean it up more, but feel free to copy-edit it more. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "one-line jokes aimed at an older audience" – I've revised this sentence. The phrase "older audience", by itself, suggests an adult (or at least teenage) audience, and thus suggests that the show contains the adult humor and double entendres characteristic of franchises like Shrek. The source said "While nothing precludes youngsters from watching 'The Emperor's New School,' the cartoon fundamentally is a show of one-liners, most of which will be funnier the older one is." The use of the word "youngsters" (which suggests very young children, rather than more savvy tweens) and the gentle phrase "the older one is" (rather than a more frank warning about adult content) suggests a contrast between younger children and slightly older children, not between children and teens/adults. —BLZ · talk 00:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the revision. I completely agree with your reasoning as it is best to be as specific as possible to avoid misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and creation

• Disney Channel should be styled as just "Disney Channel," not the Disney Channel.

• Thank you for catching this. I am not sure why I wanted to put a "the" in front of it so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "after The Emperor's New Groove attracted high ratings" – What's interesting here, but unstated, is that The Emperor's New Groove was not picked up for a spin-off series until relatively late. Most earlier Disney shows spun off from a film would have been cleared for production on the basis of box office performance (or perhaps even projections). I think there's more to unpack here: whatever you can find from sources about why the film's box office receipts were not considered strong enough for a film (even though it did turn a profit), whether strong sales on home video/DVD were also a factor in greenlighting the show, the date(s) of the TV broadcast(s) of Emperor's New Groove that were considered impressive, and the number of people who viewed the broadcast of the film if known.

• I have updated this part to include further information on the ratings and the VHS/DVD sales. Apologies for missing this in my earlier versions of the article. The Emperor's New Groove was largely seen as a box office disappointment, particularly when compared to the Disney Renaissance, and like Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet, it is often cited as part of a slump in Disney's commercial output. According to a source cited in the article, there is not one clear cut reason for this poor performance. It could be due to large-scale production changes and delays, the film's lack of songs or sympathetic lead, audience's disinterest in high-energy comedies, the film's opening in the holiday season, or Disney's greater focus on 102 Dalmatians. It is most likely a combination of all of these factors, but the film seemed to have attracted an audience pretty long after its theatrical release, and I wonder if a big-budget Disney release could be considered a cult classic. Apologies for the long message. That is all just to say that I have tried to address it in the article, but feel free to look it over and copy-edit it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added that the initial title Emperor's New Skool was "deliberately misspelled"—it seems possible that a screen reader may pronounce "Skool" the same as "School" and make it seem like there was no difference between the two titles, or that anyone else could miss the relatively subtle change.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "unlike many other animated series, New School would use its protagonist as its main source of comedy rather than a supporting character" – I've already slightly revised the wording here, but I'm curious what he said in the original source, especially whether he made any direct comparisons to other shows by name. One of my changes was to turn "unlike other animated series" into "unlike many other animated series"—it seems implausible to assert that this trait would distinguish New School from virtually any other animated series, considering that there are so many obvious counterexamples (SpongeBob SquarePants comes to mind; it's not that the side characters on that show aren't also funny, but clearly SpongeBob is a "main source of comedy".) —BLZ · talk 01:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the copy-edit! From what I remember, Gannaway does not mention any show by name in his quote as it is more of a general observation. I agree with your assessment. There are certainly several other examples, like Spongebob SquarePants, where the comedic character is the lead. I wonder if he is referring more to an unsympathetic, comedic character being the lead, since Kuzco for instance has more narcissistic, selfish moments than Spongebob normally does, but that is purely speculation on part. It would be cool if more information on the production side of the show came out. Maybe, there will be something with the movie's 20th anniversary (man, I feel old lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the original source and figured out that he meant the character dynamic was unique among Disney films, not necessarily animated series in general:

"When asked about what makes The Emperor's New School stand out in a cluttered field of animated shows vying for young viewers' attention, [Gannaway] notes, 'The Emperor's New Groove is one of the only Disney features in which the main character is a comedian. Usually the comics are sidekicks. But here, you have a funny lead character and supporting players that are very well-defined.' (the last paragraph of p. 32, continued on p. 33)

I've revised the wording accordingly. —BLZ · talk 21:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for finding the quote and doing the revision. That makes much more sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

• "J. P. Manoux replaces David Spade as the voice for Kuzco for New School." – Any more on this about either of them? Did Spade or anyone else say anything about Spade's decision not to return? Did Manoux make any statements about taking on the lead role? I saw one source (not sure which) note that Manoux's performance of Kuzco was essentially a David Spade impression, which I think that would be worth adding here. Might also be worth noting that Manoux had debuted as Kuzco in a DVD bonus feature for New Groove—feel free to even use the exact language "Manoux had debuted as Kuzco in a DVD bonus feature for New Groove," if you like.

• It appears that Manoux took over as the main voice actor for Kuzco after Spade. I have expanded this part to include other instances in which Manoux voiced the character. The only instance that I am struggling to find a good source is Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom. I was thinking of just citing it as a primary source, but I am uncertain on how to go about that for an interactive, theme park game. I have added the part about Manoux's performance being very close to Spade's. It was actually pointed out by two different articles. I could not find any comments from Manoux about his performance, although I have found some videos of him doing the Kuzco/Spade voice at fan events. I also could not find anything on why Spade left the role, which was a shame because it would have been nice if he stayed on for the show. I will keep looking for more information on both though as it could just be the search terms I am using. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I unfortunately could not find any sources about why Spade decided to leave. It is quite odd as there many many instances in which Disney voice actor stick with their character through sequels and television spin-offs (Aladdin is the first one that comes to my mind). Maybe it's because the film under-performed or the film and his performance got quite a bit of negative reviews at the time of its release (reviews seemed to have primarily turned more positive years after the film release)? Would be nice if someone asked him this during an interview now lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I beefed up the one quote from Eartha Kitt and added another one. It's evident she relished the role and expressed her enthusiasm in typical flamboyant style, which is fun to read. The symmetry of ending one statement with "There is no other Yzma!" and another with "May Yzma sing forever and often!" is too charming to pass up, imo. (My usual instinct is to avoid synonyms of "said," which tend to be overly flowery, but in the case of "May Yzma sing forever and often!" I think it's fine to use "proclaimed" because, after all, this is literally a proclamation in the style of "The king is dead, long live the king!")

• Thank you. I very much prefer your version because it does add more character and more accurately reflects Kitt's personality. I think it would add to the reader's interest in the material to clearly see how the actor was very much excited about the role. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed your paraphrasing of "There [can be] no other Yzma!" back to Kitt's original wording "There is no other Yzma!" Your paraphrase also captures the meaning of what she said, so I don't think it was misleading in any respect, but her meaning was already clear in the original and on balance I think it's better to convey her original phrasing. When I see bracketed phrases within quotes—sometimes even when I come across them while reading articles that I'm not reviewing—I typically go to the source to see why the bracketed change was made, since there must be some reason why the quote had to be altered (if only slightly) to convey the correct meaning or to avoid confusion (as in the case of, for example, an ambiguous pronoun). Here, I don't see a compelling reason for the alteration.

• That makes sense to me. I am not entirely sure why I paraphrased it so I agree with your revision. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably worth mentioning, as this 2007 article in the Ventura County Star does, that Warburton was a recurring voice actor on five series including New School at the same time, one of which (Kim Possible) was also on Disney Channel. You wouldn't have to name all the other shows necessarily, but it would make sense just to note the tally of five shows and Kim Possible by name because of the Disney Channel connection. It reflects a bit about Warburton's career at that time—he seems to have had more work as a voice actor than any other cast member on the show.

• Thank you for the source. I have added it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The original voice actor, John Goodman, returned ..." — It would be a good idea to introduce the fact that Goodman originally played Pacha earlier in the paragraph, even if you keep the sentence about Goodman's ultimate return where it is at the end. Also: did Goodman make any public statements about returning to the role? He's a pretty big name—it's not that it would be out of the question for him to voice the character on a TV spin-off version, he's always been quite prolific, but it does seem notable that he decided to return after an initial decision to opt out.

• That is a good point. I have revised the article. I will be doing some further research on why Goodman did not participate in the first season (and why Spade did not participate in it at all) over the next few days. Apologies for the delay. I just want to make sure that I do as an exhaustive search as possible to insure I do not miss anything, since as you have already pointed out in the review, I have overlooked quite a fair amount of sources. I will add a message on here when I have either added new sources or to report that I could not find anything else. I hope that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I could not find much about Goodman's role in the show. Several sources completely gloss over the fact he was not in the first season, and just mention Goodman as connected with the show in a more generic statement. Tatasciore seems to be in a lot of Disney projects as "additional voices" so maybe they hired him (since he already understood the voice-acting process) while negotiating with Goodman, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact: I think it would be best to restructure the section so that it begins with the idea that "Most of the voice cast from the film returned for the series," which is supported by e.g. Daley's article in Screen Rant.

• Good idea. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are other noteworthy guest stars out there. I found Miley's sister Noah Cyrus and comedian Gabriel Iglesias.

• I have added a few more guest stars to the list, and added sources to support the new information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice to have more perspective from the cast members. Bergen has a fun quote here about performing with Warburton despite never recording in the same room at the same time. Did Jessica DiCicco have anything to say about playing Malina, the most prominent new character (and the target of some criticism)?

• Thank you for the link. I am uncertain on how I missed that the first time through. I have added the information and quoted the Abbott and Costello bit because it is quite amazing lol. It is always interesting to hear about how voice actors record separately and yet can still have such great chemistry on screen. It is a real testament not only to the voice actors, but to the editors and animators. There is certainly a lot to juggle. As with the Spade/Goodman comments above, I will do more research on DiCicco. I would not be surprised if she spoke somewhere given Malina is the most prominent new character so I could see Disney pushing that as a promotional tool. I will try my best to dig something up. It would be interesting to learn more about her experience and perspective. I actually enjoyed the character; it was just the hottie hot hottie part that I found grating. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I could not find anything on DiCicco's opinions on Malina or New School in general. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem; thanks for checking it out. Can't use information that doesn't exist, so it's not an issue. —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animation and music

• Overall, solid. Might be nice to have more secondary commentary. This book makes a comment about the quality of New School's animation (and writing), albeit in passing as a comment on Disney spin-off shows generally. This source might be better suited to reception.

• I have added the source to the reception section. I think his criticism about Disney spin-off shows assuming the audience has a built-in familiarity with the source material is interesting, and I tired to think of a way to word it for the production section, but it always sounded too opinionated and seemed more relevant for the reception section. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast history and release

• According to this 2008 article at Broadcasting & Cable, New School and a group of other Disney Channel shows were made available to stream on Netflix starting in 2009. Unclear when the license expired expired. Notably, the deal was the first Disney–ABC license for Netflix and was announced only 18 months into the launch of Netflix as a streaming service (and a few months before New School aired its final episode).

• I have added a sentence about it with an additional source about how Disney has recently ended their Netflix deal in favor Disney+. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything about where New School aired in non-domestic markets? E.g. it aired on the Family Channel in Canada.

• I will look into that while doing the research for Spade/Goodman/DiCicco information. It was honestly something that I did not think about so thank you for raising it to my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any idea on where I could find that information? I have tried a few different ways, but I could not find anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's alright, I don't think it's strictly necessary. Besides, on second thought, any attempt to create a list of where else the show aired in the international marketplace would end up incomplete, so choosing to list a handful that happen to be mentioned in reliable sources would end up being somewhat arbitrary. Many major markets would be missing from the list for no reason other than the lack of a readily available source. —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Each episode runs for 30 minutes" – Probably less with time for commercial breaks, right? I've checked articles about other series (The Simpsons, Rugrats) and it looks like the norm is to list the running time of a typical episode rather than the block of time they fit into with commercials. —BLZ · talk 00:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to clarify the rollout of the complicated multi-part premiere, but I still have a few questions. Before my most recent edit, the article said this: "The first episode, "Rabbit Face", debuted on the four networks between January 27 and January 29, 2006." Two issues. First, not all four of the platforms in question were really "networks", since Disney Channel On Demand is not a network at all, while ABC Kids is only a regular block on an actual network, ABC. Second, it's not quite clear when the "true" earliest premiere occurred, or on which network it premiered. I revised the text to clarify where and when each premiere occurred.

However, it's still not clear to me when it "really" premiered because of an apparent contradiction between the Animation World Network and AllMovie sources. According to Animation World Network, the show apparently first aired on Toon Disney on January 20, 2006—the same day that it became available through Disney Channel On Demand. That date would have been a Friday, a fact which is used later to say that the show's regular time slot on Toon Disney was "on Friday afternoons". On the other hand, AllMovie says that the show "debuted on The Disney Channel, ABC and Toon Disney over a three-day period, from January 27 through 29, 2006". Knowing that the show debuted Jan. 27 on Disney Channel and Jan. 28 on ABC, these seems to suggest that the third debut was Sunday Jan. 29 on Toon Disney. Otherwise, it's not clear why the date Jan. 29 is there at all; even Disney Channel's second airing should have occurred on Saturday, not Sunday. My suspicion is that both sources are wrong in some way, but it's not clear how. I doubt that it aired on Toon Disney on Jan. 20, because otherwise why would it be mentioned third by AWN if it had come first? This article on Animation Magazine indicates that New School was part of a Saturday/Sunday block on Toon Disney starting in 2007, but other (not necessarily "reliable") sources indicate that New School may have played on Toon Disney in various other time slots throughout the week, which changed over time. Either way, I don't know what to make of the Toon Disney premiere date used by AWN or how to use it; I don't know that it can be reliably used to say that Friday afternoons became its regular time on that channel.

• Thank you for the message, and this part is much more confusing that I had initially thought so apologies for that. From what I can see, a majority of the sources put the show's premiere on January 27. I also doubt that the series debuted on Toon Disney first, because it would seem more normal to have shows like this one premiere on Disney Channel first before anything else. As for sourcing the time slots, I could try looking through Newspapers.com for TV listings. Just wanted to check with you about this first. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked through the newspaper archives, and although I found a lot of TV listings, the times and days even are all over the place. A lot of the TV listings do not distinguish between the original airings and reruns, which adds an extra layer of confusion. Based on screenshots of the official New School website, it included a schedule feature. While that may clear things up, I do not think the site is available due to Flash issues. A majority of the sources I found put the premiere on January 27 on Disney Channel. Here is another source (from the Chicago Tribune) that mentions this premiere date (as well as the time slot). However, that source even has its own problem as Yzma never has magic spells as it claims lol. The AWN source about Kitt singing (here) mentions a Saturday premiere at 8:30 pm, which is different from the AWN source used for the scheduling. It is all rather confusing, and it could be a case where there was not a clearly defined schedule. With all of this confusion, I have removed the information from that section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

• I found some sources critical of New School in terms of educational content that I want to share:

• 2008 article from The Globe and Mail: According to a survey of "30 television shows that U.S. commercial broadcasters label as educational or informational for preschoolers, elementary-school kids and teenagers as part of federal 'core educational programming' requirements" conducted by "Barbara Wilson, a communication professor", and her colleagues, New School and two other shows "scored high on social aggression, which involves gossip, exclusion and other non-physical means of hurting others. While Dr. Wilson allows that the makers of shows that portray social aggression probably see it as a way to teach children not to engage in such behaviour, she says some shows include so much of it that the message may be fuzzy. 'If you're showing it repeatedly throughout the episode, it's far more likely you're doing it for laughs and to entertain,' she says." A pdf of the study itself can be found here.
• Another criticism came in the context of regulations on children's television programming in the United States. Children's Media Policy Coalition (CMPC)—an advocacy group made up of member organizations Children Now, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Benton Foundation, the National PTA, and Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ—conducted a survey of educational content in children's media. It was attached as Appendix II to this filed 2007 FCC comment; the critique of New School can be found at pp. 2–3 of Appendix II. They also noted that Emperor's New School was one of the "74% (seventeen shows)" out of 25 E/I shows in the survey that "contained only social-emotional messages," i.e. no academic/informational lessons at all. They also explicitly note New School's target age of 8–11, which I believe is sourced from FCC filings and broadcaster. In its reply, the National Association of Broadcasters quoted from the CMPC's critique of New School at p. 8, fn. 26: "Kuzco never has to face a personal conflict or find a resolution, nor are there any real repercussions for Kuzco's anti-social behavior (other than his eventual loneliness)."

These echo some of the critical comments already found in the article, but with the addition of academic perspective on childhood development. —BLZ · talk 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the sources. That is very interesting, and apologies for missing them before. I will probably format this information into its own separate paragraph in the reception section. I will most likely do it some time tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to incorporate this information into the article although it is very rough. It was getting quite long so I made it into its own subsection. I am uncertain if I have put too much information in the article or not so I would greatly appreciate your perspective on the matter. I have incorporated some of the information from these sources in other areas of the article. I have also added in some additional sources (one about the show's vaudeville humor and another on its Christmas episode). I found those two sources while looking for further information on Spade/Goodman/DiCicco. Thank you again for the above sources. They were quite interesting to read through, and I may look at them again more thoroughly in the future to read how they discuss other shows. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

• Sources for the "first aired" and "last aired" dates? —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added sources for all of the airdates. I have also removed the wikilinks for both seasons as they are not working, and I do not think they are particularly beneficial. I will read through and address the rest of the comments tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course—no rush. —BLZ · talk 03:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cast (Brian Cummings/Pacha)

• Regarding Pacha: "Some media outlets erroneously attributed Brian Cummings with the role. Cummings had done "advance voice work" for Pacha as part of The Emperor's New Groove's development." This could use clearing up. It seems that Cummings did contribute to the show in some capacity. Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary confirms that he contributed voice acting to the show, without specifying what his role was.

However, the main issue here is not really about whether Cummings was on the show at all. It's actually that, although Animation Magazine and Rapid City Journal are reliable sources, they can't be used to verify their own error. You're clearly right to point out that those two sources were incorrect about Cummings. But citing those same sources only verifies that they made the claim "Cummings played Pacha"; it does not verify that they were wrong about that claim, as they didn't run corrections. It doesn't seem that any other secondary sources followed up to "correct" those two. The only other thing that can verify the error would be specific credits for the entirety of the series—i.e., not just a list of cast members, but a complete (or very nearly complete) list of every cast member and which role(s) they played on the series.

IMDb's full credits for the show indicate that Cummings appeared on a number of episodes as "voice", which I take to mean additional voices for unnamed miscellaneous characters, just like you said Tatasciore had done on other Disney shows. Meanwhile, Tatasciore is credited by name as Pacha.

Now, IMDb is usually considered an iffy source by Wikipedia standards—see WP:CITINGIMDB and WP:RS/IMDB)—but I trust it here (at least on an informal basis). According to WP:CITINGIMDB, it's "in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference [IMDb] on Wikipedia" for released "films" only, for "the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications." Unfortunately, the guideline doesn't specify the nature of the dispute in terms of when it is or isn't considered appropriate, or the arguments for or against. AllMovie's "cast and crew" section for the series doesn't work as an alternate source because it is much less complete than IMDb's cast listing. AllMovie omits easily-verified cast members like John Goodman and thus would not be adequate to verify that Cummings did not play Pacha; we can't use AllMovie to say that Cummings did not play Pacha and invalidate the other two (technically reliable, if incorrect) sources, because we could just as easily say AllMovie shows Goodman never played the role and any sources indicating otherwise were in error. In this situation, it seems to me that the only alternative to citing IMDb's collated, series-long full cast & crew section would be to somehow cite the series as a whole as a primary source, which would also be a problematic solution for its own reasons.

So Aoba47, my question now is: do you know of any reliable source as thorough as IMDb's full cast & crew for the purpose of showing that Cummings never played Pacha? If not: how would you feel about using IMDb? Personally I'm in favor of it, but I'm not familiar with past discussions on IMDb's relative reliability and when it could be appropriate to cite them for cast information. I feel like it would be OK under WP:CITINGIMDB to cite IMDb in this situation, since it's a completed TV series, there's a lack of acceptable alternative sources, and we have a rare situation of two reliable sources being wrong about casting of a major role. This question probably warrants further input, and it may be necessary to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film (since they have the guideline about IMDb as a source) and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television (since the article falls within their scope). —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for bringing this up. I agree that my part about the sources incorrectly listing Cummings as Pacha was far too strong and my own interpretation. I would not have an issue using IMDb in this context, because, as you have already explained in your message above, this is a rather rare case. It may be helpful to also reach out to Wikipedia:RSN about it since I could see this being useful for other editors working on similar types of articles. I have found this book source which says that Cummings "has provided voices for hundreds of episodes of such animated series" as The Emperor's New School, so I am curious if that could be used. I will incorporate the IMDb source in a few moments, and revise the prose to better reflect the sources, but I was just trying to brainstorm different avenues. My only concern with the proposed book source is that it is rather vague, but I would be interested in getting your feedback on it. Thank you again for addressing this as this does raise a lot of interesting questions about working on articles like this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Support – I've now copyedited the "Reception" section, which completes my review. SandyGeorgia's review prompted several improvements that resolved the remaining issues I'd raised in my last new comments. Having turned over just about every conceivable stone, I now believe the article meets the FA criteria and is in as good a state as it could possibly be. Thank you Aoba47, as always, for your patience, positive attitude, and dedication. —BLZ · talk 23:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I should be the one thanking you. You have helped to improve the article immensely, and I am very grateful for your time and the energy you put into it. It was a lot of fun to learn more about the show, with some surprising information (like the educational criticism) and some bothersome inconsistencies (the premiere dates and scheduling as a whole). I again want to thank SandyGeorgia (and everyone who participated in the review). I am really proud of the article, and it honestly could not be done without everyone. Hope you had a happy holidays! I cannot believe the year is almost over, but I lose track of time quite often lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read any commentary above (the FAC is twice as long as the short article). Compared with 3,415 words of readable prose, the lead is quite long and goes in to excess detail (see MOS:LEAD). There are some obvious ways to trim verbosity from the lead (Example: In addition to the preceding characters, who had all appeared in the original film, The series introduced Malina, Kuzco's overachieving female classmate and love interest.), but more trimming would still be needed to make it a tight and compelling summary of the article. From there, I skipped down to a random section, where the first sentence is:

• • I will look through the lead and attempt to cut down any extraneous information. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The multi-platform premiere of New School was called a "typical Disney super-saturation" broadcast practices by AllMovie's Hal Erickson.
  • ????
    • I will reword this part momentarily. The series was broadcast across four channels, and the media outlet referred to this as typical of how Disney pushes out content in a "super-saturation" manner. I will revise this part as this section has revised quite a bit during the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reworded this part and moved it to a different spot in the section to hopefully make things clear. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the first sentence of the next section:

• New School was covered in several reviews, which highlighted good and bad aspects of the series.
  • ... which does not say anything.
    • I had originally put in the lead that the series received mixed reviews, but there were concerns that since a source never clearly defines this, it would go against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so the above sentence was suggested as a compromise. I would be more than happy to hear your suggestion though. I have replaced that sentence with a topic sentence about the series' positive reception which is already outlined in the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the reception section and split it into three paragraphs: one for the contemporary reviews, one for the retrospective reviews, and one for the Malina criticism since it has both types of reviews. I think that this creates a stronger flow for the section. I have added quite a bit of information to the article after doing more research so apologies for all of the activity. I will refrain from doing any edits to make sure reviewers can look at a stable copy of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So some prose tightening is probably in order and may be best accomplished by a fresh set of eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, copyedit seems to have been effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • I respect your opinion. I will do some revisions to the article as I have stated in my above comments. @Brandt Luke Zorn: is still wrapping up his review so I would look forward to his responses and further commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good ... busy holiday time, and I won't be following closely, but I will check back after Christmas. (The concern about such a long FAC review is that the nominator ends up doing, undoing, and re-doing to please reviewers ... as you seem to indicate may be happening.) Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Oops, I failed to give you suggestions on the sentence that doesn't say anything ... it sounds like you ended up there because of previous reviewers, and it may not be the best compromise. I suggest going to WP:FA and browsing similar series, for ideas of ways other FA writers have handled the dilemma of how to summarize reviews without getting SYNTH-y. I can't think of a favorite series FA off the top of my head, or I'd recommend one to you. I'm pretty sure most "critical reception" sections just dive in, without trying to summarize it, but I could be mis-remembering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you for the response. I hope I did not come across as rude in any of my responses. It is important to get different perspectives to build stronger content (as I am sure you are very familiar with). I will definitely look through other featured articles as I always find that to be helpful. I am used to editors putting together some kind of topic sentence, but in these instances, it may be best to just dive straight in the content, as topic sentences can often veer dangerously close to filler territory. I hope your holiday time is going well so far. I cannot believe it is the end of the year and the decade. I am somewhat frazzled today because I helped my mom make a cheesecake for a work function and the plumbing is starting to act up so it has been a little bit of a roller coaster. I am looking forward to hearing from you again, and thank you again for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        I saw no rudeness ... Good luck with the plumbing, and the FAC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        Awesome, and thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to give you an update. I attempted to address the above concerns. I reached out to a few editors to get a fresh perspective on the article. I am very grateful for Gen. Quon for copy-editing the article and Homeostasis07 for providing helpful suggestions and supporting the nomination. Apologies again, as I know pings can be rather annoying particularly around the holidays, but just wanted to let you know that work has been and is currently being done to improve the article. Have a happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, on my list to get to today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, since Ian Rose already went through and promoted/archived this morning, it is unlikely that a FAC Coord will look at this today. I have other pressing work to attend to this morning, but will promise to get to this later. In the meantime, a few things you might look at:

• I figured that would be the cast. I would have ideally liked to complete this nomination prior to the new year as that was when I planned to start my retirement (or at the least a long wikibreak), but I would not want to rush the process because of that. Thank you again for taking the time to do this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting anew

• WP:NBSP: see my sample edit and review throughout.
• It was one of three series deemed to have "high" levels of social aggression, alongside Hannah Montana and Jacob Two-Two.[74] Wilson noted that, in principle, a children's series could highlight characters who exhibit socially aggressive behaviors in order to teach children to avoid such behavior. However, she doubted whether that message would be adequately conveyed by shows with repeated instances of social aggression, which would be "far more likely" to feature such content "for laughs and to entertain" rather than to impart a moral lesson.[75]

• I am unsure that "high" needs to be quoted here, and would like to see the opinion attribution (Wilson) moved to earlier in this passage, to indicate (I believe?) that the "high" levels of social aggression are attributed to Wilson. Also, in very briefly reviewing the source (perhaps too briefly?), I am unsure where "rather than to impart a moral lesson" comes from, following on the "for laughs and to entertain". Could you show me a passage from the source that supports that phrase?

• I have removed the quotation marks from high. Could you clarify the part about the attribution? Wilson is identified as the author of the report in the beginning of the paragraph so I was wondering how the attribution should be made clearer between Wilson and her remarks on social aggression.

• Ah, I missed that she was at the beginning of the para, so no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. It made me read over the paragraph and double-check, and that is always a good thing. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I could not find the support for the "moral lesson" part so I removed it. That was probably a misreading on my part so apologies for that. Thank you again to BLZ for finding all the educational research. I had somehow missed all of them during my own research for the article, and it is pretty cool that this series was the object of study. I personally did not expect that so it is nice to learn more. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider per WP:LEAD whether these two passages provide unnecessary detail in the lead (overspecificity on dates):

The Emperor's New School is an American animated television series created by Mark Dindal, which aired on Disney Channel for two seasons from January 27, 2006 to November 20, 2008.

Could that be, "two seasons running between January 2006 and November 2008"?

• I have revised the lead according to your suggestion. When looking through featured articles on television shows, they use the more specific dates for the premiere and finale, but I understand your point. I think it could be boiled down to a personal preference, and since I am fine either way, I have incorporated your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between January 27 and 29, 2006, New School premiered across four platforms:

Could that be, "In January 2006"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell, this may be a personal peeve of mine that others do not care about; leads are littered with precise dates everywhere. I feel that leads don't need to be laden with so much specificity that no one cares about, rather gives us an easy-to-read broad overview. If you get pushback on that, you will have to blame me and tell them to go and whack me with a trout :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you when I see the lead revised. Leaving out the exact dates does make the information more digestible, particularly when the exact dates are in the infobox right next to the lead. That is one great thing about FACs. I can learn about new ways to better present information after being so accustomed to seeing it done with one style. I doubt I will get pushback in the future, but I will keep you informed lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that we do not need to overburden the reader with too much detail in the lead; that detail is in the infobox and covered in the body. Are we burdening the reader with more numbers than they need ?

Also, I may be completely ignorant on some MOS-ism here, but why isn't it the Disney Channel?

• Those are both good questions. For some reason, the sources leave out the "the", and just use Disney Channel instead. Not entirely sure why that is the case. I agree that it is probably best to cut back on the numbers as that information is already more readily accessible in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will ignore the "the" issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I actually had the Disney Channel until a reviewer pointed out that it was incorrect. It sounds better with the "the", but have to go with the sources. It is not the first time I missed up things with the "the" lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promise to return later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• and they ask me to say one of the lines. ... I love it.

There is something at either WP:NBSP of MOS:ELLIPSES about how to handle breaking spaces on a construct like this ... I haven't kept up with that issue, so will have to leave it to you to investigate. Not an issue worth holding up promotion over, but something that mainpage day nitpickers will pick up on. Still working, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will check it out in the future. I have used the nobr template so the ellipse and surrounding words would not be separated to avoid any potential confusion. It is interesting to think about how people read articles in such different ways that the text placement is different on different screens, etc. I definitely need to read more thoroughly the punctuation parts of the MOS. I have been doubting myself lately about commas in particularly. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did not read the entire article, and have not checked sources, so I am not in a position to support, but I did spot-check three sections and found nothing that should hold up promotion. Please let me know if you get pushback on the date changes, as I will take the heat for that one! Best of luck, we are good here, I am unwatching now, so you will need to ping me if further feedback is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the help again, and I hope you had a merry Christmas (or holiday-time in general). It was fun to look through the points you have raised and learn more about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like SandyGeorgia's unwatched this page already anyway, but I wanted to give two shout-outs (plus unpack the "Disney Channel" thing a little more):

• Your trims to the lead were good and necessary. I'm partly to blame for it growing so long, as I copyedited before thoroughly reading the body, and I had always intended to revisit and trim it after I got a better sense of the overall content and condition of available sources (which has taken a while, admittedly). Anyway, lead looks really good now.
• Trimming the dates was a good move. You don't have to "take the heat" for that at all (though I understand why you kindly offered to step in if anyone hassled Aoba47 about the change); to the contrary, thank you! It's stylistically preferable from the standpoint of prose quality, and it also serves as a workaround for the minor (but bedeviling) inaccuracies/discrepancies about those dates that I'd discovered in reliable sources. It seems impossible to resolve the precise dating of the complicated premiere rollout using the available sources anyway, so the date omission tidily resolves one of my last major issues.
• Finally, the total omission of "the" from the name "Disney Channel" is a little odd but it is the correct usage, which it shares with some other networks. Similarly, Cartoon Network is never called the Cartoon Network (at least, not since 1995 or so). Numerous American networks with acronymic names avoid a "the" that might normally seem necessary in some sentences, or if the full name were used instead: for example, saying "the ESPN" might sound OK if you know that the last letter in its name stands for "Network", except for the tacit knowledge that that's not how you'd refer to ESPN regardless. It's something along the lines of the famous scene from The Social Network when they decide to drop the "the" and make it just Facebook in all usages, or this line from the spy film The Good Shepherd: "I remember a Senator once asked me, when we talk about CIA, why we never use the word the in front of it. And I asked him, 'do you put the word the in front of God?'" I don't think Disney is trying to brand its channel as God, exactly, but their "the" avoidance is intentional and seems to emphasize its status as a self-contained Proper Name, rather than a proper name (Disney) that happens to be attached as an adjective to a mere common noun (channel). —BLZ · talk 23:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to comment on this a few weeks back but instead ended up depressed about something else... Anyways, just wanted to say that I agree with some of SandyGeorgia's comments above. There's a bit of verbosity that I think could easily be trimmed, such as in the Lead:

• The series centers on Kuzco, a self-centered teenager who must graduate from Kuzco Academy to become emperor of the Inca Empire. Yzma, his former advisor, wants him to fail so she can be empress instead. Her schemes to sabotage Kuzco are staged with the help of her dim-witted henchman Kronk, while Kuzco is aided by the villager Pacha and his peasant family. New School introduced Malina, Kuzco's overachieving female classmate and love interest.

I think there's a bit too much detail in this paragraph. How about changing to something like: "The series centers on Kuzco, who must graduate from Kuzco Academy to become emperor of the Inca Empire. His former advisor Yzma schemes to sabotage Kuzco so she can be empress instead; she is aided by her henchman Kronk, while Kuzco is aided by the villager Pacha and his peasant family. New School introduced Kuzco's love interest Malina."

Thank you for the suggestion. I have incorporated it into the lead to simplify the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of copy-edits to subsequent sections. Although most of it was brilliantly written, there was this one sentence in Cast:

• She explained her decision with the "There is no other Yzma!"

Which seemed to jump out at me Cato-style. The previous sentences don't introduce why this quote is relevant, and it doesn't especially relate to subsequent sentences, so I'd suggest rephrasing or removing.

I have removed that part. I think the basic ideas was Kitt thought no one else could or should voice Yzma instead of her, but the previous sentences in that paragraph already firmly establish her connection with the character so that quote was somewhat redundant and probably best removed altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I found the prose clear and engaging, and would be happy to support once these changes are made. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Homeostasis07: Thank you for the suggestions. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you are having a happy holidays, and sorry again to hear about Fredriksson, but at least people can celebrate her through listening to her music and learn about her through reading the related Wikipedia articles. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for addressing my points Aoba47. I've read the article once more, and couldn't see anything else I'd suggest changing. Happy to support this nomination for promotion. Good luck with it. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the help and support! Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to check on the status of the nomination as it has already received a source review, an image review, and quite a bit of commentary/reviews and support. Thank you for your time, and have an awesome end of your year! Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2019 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of Diego Velázquez's most heavy weight paintings, but a favorite for those interested in 17th century clothes and fashion...we do exist:) There is drama here, she married young, in a rush and ill advisedly, born out by her unhappy pout in this and later portraits. Feedback gratefully appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to ((PD-100)).

No ALT text that I can see but image placement is reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done NikkiJo-Jo will address. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so to be clear, * File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to ((PD-100)). was from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loosing it - yes and thanks. Am working through alt text. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, PD100 added. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki

chaie? I'm guessing chair

"its width emphasised by the broad lace collar and the horizontal patterns of the dress's trimmed borders, and her wide collar" two collars?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"recorded in a 1700 inventory as a pendant to" Both paintings are about the same size. Is pendant in this context some bit of stuckist jargon?

what makes people think it is a gilded clock as opposed to a gold one? ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers, working through these. Thanks for the copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is whats intended Pendant painting, see also Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, I've learned a new thing about art, though I still think as a pair is shorter and more widely understandable than as a pendant. More generally I'm happy to support FA status, though I should add that the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone with "paired with". Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These'll be in batches over the day, I'm afraid.

Lead

• "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg" - I wonder if this could be made a little clearer? "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg family" / "to secure the succession of the Habsburg dynasty", or some such.

• Sorted, though thinking of expanding 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Clarified Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As such she became Queen consort of Spain, and reigned from 1634 to 1696" - but not as Queen consort, after Philip's death in 1665. Their son's article describes her as Queen Regent. Then, I think she stopped being regent in 1675, on Charles' majority, although she continued to exercise great influence. So perhaps: "On her marriage, she became Queen consort and, at her husband's death, Queen regent during her son's minority, until his accession in 1675. After this, due to Charles II's infirmity, she continued to exercise influence until her own death in 1696."

• agree. Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and a large gold brooch" - you may well disagree, in which case ignore, but I wonder of the big gold disc in the centre of her bust is best described as a brooch? I tend to think of brooches as things to the side, often for fastening, which this isn't. What about pendant? That said, I can't really tell if it's affixed to the chain in some way, or not. In the Versailles portrait, it clearly is, but in the MET portrait, I think it's not. Maybe best to stick with brooch!

• We don't really know, so have left open / ambiguous. Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is addressed. Would appreciate a rered. Ceoil (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was painted over by another hand" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that Velázquez originally drew a curtain, which somebody else subsequently embellished? Or does it mean that there was no curtain originally and one was added later by another artist? Do the sources tell us?

• see above Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that it was not in Vel's original painting. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dress, and fashionably wide dresses" - "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dresses, and fashionably wide costumes"?

Description

• "with every attempt made to convey a sense of her majesty" - as she's not previously been mentioned in this section, I wonder if "with every attempt made to convey a sense of the queen's/Marianna's majesty"?

• Removed Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "her black dress, which is at least given pictorial space" - not getting what the "at least" is trying to say here?

• Reworded Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "that wilful, mulish German" - not sure why the last bit of the quote is italicised? Is it a quote within a quote?

I think because I like the quote very much, having a lot of German family and friends, and at one time, prob late at night though...I could have put it that way. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The overhanging curtain was painted over by another hand.[14]" - see my query in the lead. Oddly, Cite 14 is taking me to another picture entirely within the Prado collection. Think this must be an error?

• Yes; removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "She holds a lace scarf in her left hand" - you call this a handkerchief in the Lead. Not sure which is best?

• See above Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commission and dating

• "that his courtly duties hindered his available time for painting" - perhaps, "that his courtly duties limited the time he could devote to painting"?

Done Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Felipe Prospera" - I think it's "Felipe Prospero".

• done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "to return to Madrid as soon as possible to completed the work" - "complete".

• done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Last para. of this section - this confused me a bit. It starts by talking about Marianna's portraits, but ends (last two sentences) talking about portraits of Maria Theresa and Margaret Theresa. As such, the "her" and "she" threw me a bit as I wasn't sure whether they were referring to the mother or to one of the daughters. Moreover, the fifth sentence is definitely about Maria, while the sixth is about Margaret, so I don't think the "She" is right. Would it be possible to clarify.

Gallery

• The Infanta Maria portrait - Other than that it's another Velázquez, I'm not quite getting the relevance of this one. I'd probably put in the full Las Meninas portrait, which you don't have. As it shows Mariana, and is mentioned in the article, I'd suggest it has greater relevance.

• Was trying to show the progression of his later portraits of royalty, which to me are his supreme achievements. I think he got there by trial and error; they became progressively better, which was what was trying to convey. I think the ghostly Portrait of the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain is the best of these, but seem understudied., hense not at FAC. The galley has been trimmed since by a FU bot, not in favour of trimming further, as the paintings have to be taken in context. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have trimmed this. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• Note 2 - isn't this actually a Footnote, rather than a reference?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 14 - as indicated in Description above, this seems to be a misdirect. I think you need this [6].

• done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• "Mazo's 'Queen Mariana of Spain in Mourning'". London: National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 26, 2005 - I think the third author's name is the wrong way round. She's Marika (forename) Spring (surname), and thus should list as "Spring, Marika".

• done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ortiz, Dominguez Antonio. Velázquez. New York: Harry N Abrams, 1990 - I think his surname is Dominguez Ortiz, with Antonio as his forename. This would agree with your alphabetic listing.

• sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. A fascinating article, made even more interesting for me personally as I first read it while in Spain. Pleased to Support when you've had a chance to consider the comments/suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP for the feedback. Starting now to address. Ceoil (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1:, I think I have all of these sorted; you might give another look when you have a chance. Thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - She's looking good, and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all the help. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the matter of the curtain needs some clarification; otherwise nothing but a few style quibbles:

• "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was added by another hand." (Lead section): I'd change it to something like "The upper part of the rather dramatically drawn curtain", otherwise it sounds as if the whole curtain was painted or overpainted by another artist, which as far as I can tell is not what sources say.

• Yes good point, done Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same vein, in "Provenance and copies" Velázquez is said to have extended the canvas at the top; Georgia Mancini (in Carr) says that "a hand other than Velázquez added a piece of canvas to the top of the original composition and painted the upper part of the curtain" sometime before 1700 to match the size of Philip’s portrait.

• I'm not finding this, do you have a link. useful. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Carr on p 226; online there's just enough of the relevant text visible here. Ewulp (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Added now. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Housed in the Museo del Prado, its subject, Dona Mariana, known as Maria Anna, was the daughter of Emperor Ferdinand III and the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain." (Lead section) Taken by itself, that sentence seems to say that Dona Mariana is housed in the Prado rather than her portrait.

Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "15th December 1651" (Lead): an adjustment would eliminate ordinal per MOS:DATE.

• Edited Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The painting is composed from harmonious shades of whites, blacks and reds." I’ve read the article through a few times in the last week and the from always clanks; I'd go with of. I thought perhaps it was just me but there is evidence that this is an unusual usage.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an engaging article that I look forward to supporting for FA. Ewulp (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewulp, re-reading the sources and hope to address issues around the curtain this afternoon. Will let you know. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think its ready now for another look. I may need clarity re the point on the curtain above. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rake another look Ewulp pls; have had a close look a the attribution of upper part of the curtain, and I hope clarified. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just removed a duplicate (I think) title from "Sources", as I'm pretty sure the same Met catalogue of 1989 was listed twice. There remains some confusion in a few of the refs: should the citations to "Gállego (1989)" be amended to "Ortiz, Gallego (1989)" or to ""Gállego (1984)"? Ewulp (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok caught this. The error seems to be related to contributors vs editors. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mariana had extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery, but her married life was pressured by the need to produce a male heir." The pressure to produce a male heir is discussed twice already in "Background" & seems repetitive here; probably better simplified to something like: "Mariana's extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery is evident, but a modern view is that she..." Ewulp (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and cut and rephrased per your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great: Full support. Ewulp (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put the word "Austria" somewhere in the first half of the first "Background" paragraph.
• "Philip sought Mariana, " I doubt if he went a-wooing. Maybe something like "Philip negotiated for Mariana's hand in marriage" or whatever the sources will support.
• "highly pressurised" maybe, "under great pressure"?
• There seems to be unsourced material, for example the last sentence of "Background"
• "She is has an unusually rigid and stiff pose;" some small problem near the start of this I think.
• "Her dress is extensively lined with silver braids and decorated with red ribbon.[2]" I might lead the paragraph with this. Also you might want to break up the somewhat repetitive sentence beginnings, "Her ..."
• "Her left hand holds large and elaborately folded white cloth," Either an "a" missing or it needs to be "cloths"
• "Velázquez was then the Spanish crown painter, having been Aposentador mayor del Palacio (officer in charge of palace lodging) since 1652.[18] " I took this to mean that this was the title held by the Spanish crown painter, but the following sentences suggest that his duties were distinct from painting. Some clarification might help.
• "He accepted the commission" that is, for the Mariana painting.
• "in life Mariana was vivacious and fun loving.[24][10]" You've told the reader this before. Also, refs may be not in order.
• "From this, we can infer that the painting was completed at least before this date.[23]" You might move "at least" to before "infer" or better yet omit it.

Looks pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now all resolved. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, are you good with the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support From a hasty re-read, looks much better.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mariana was born on 21 December 1634 in Wiener Neustadt, Austria, as the second child of Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor and of Philip IV of Spain's sister Maria Anna of Spain. Her parents had six children..." -- Maria's or Mariana's?

Maria's. Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Realising that the hegemony of the Halsburg dynasty was at stake,[6] Philip negotiated to marry Mariana..." Negotiated seems like the wrong word here, unless it was a business deal. "Planned"?

It was absolutely a 'business' deal. see worse re her son in: Habsburg Motherhood: The Power of Mariana of Austria, Queen Regent for Carlos II of Spain. She was quite the bright and able spark though. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "By nature vivacious" → "Vivacious by nature".

• done. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696." -- overly long, and the serial comma makes it a little difficult to read.
• "However, Velázquez seemingly conducts an in-depth examination of her character." -- Velázquez or Mariana? Sorry, it may be obvious to you and I, but it may not be to others. It then continues with the female pronoun which may only add to the confusion. It looks ambiguous because we are talking of two women.

done. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "She has alabaster skin..." -- new para, new noun.

  rewrote this. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her bodice accentuates her waist." -- ditto
• "Although she had extravagant taste" -- ditto
• "He accepted the commission for the portrait during his 1649–50 visit to Italy. -- ditto
• "Philip's portrait is unfinished, with some sections, including the lion, described as "hardly more than sketched" -- by whom?

Cassianto^Talk 20:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, have all these now. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

• "Vivacious by nature, Mariana wrote that her day to day courtly duties seemed oppressive, and she was under great pressure to produce a male heir." -- where did she write this?

Its of historical record. Reworded so its not first hand. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "the marriage was deemed a success when she gave birth to a daughter..." -- By who?

• Presumably by Philip and his close advisers. Have reworded this slightly; but its obviously an uncontroversial inference made by historians. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mariana had a difficult life; she and Philip had not met before their marriage, and later found little in common." -- I think saying "difficult life" and then going on to give the only example of this as the problematic marriage is not illustrating the difficult life enough. A difficult marriage, sure, but some have difficult marriages, but otherwise have a good life.

There was constant pressure. Now reading - He was aged over 40 years, she was 19, and her bid to provide Philip with an heir, in a family whose male children tended to be sickly,[9] included a number of false hopes and miscarriages.[10] When Philip died in 1665 she became regent for her son Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs.[11][12] As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696.[13] For "dominated", read coped very well, though that judgement is outside the scope of the article. Ceoil (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section now clearer. Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a broken ref in the first para of the "Description" section

• I think Ewulp sorted this. Ceoil (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "She has an unusually rigid and stiff pose; her upper body and head seem to almost suffocate underneath her black dress" -- Perhaps best to reduce the POV.

• Ok, will make the POC bits "according to art historian" Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her unusually pale skin is heavily painted in rouge, making it almost doll-like under her wig and wide head-dress." -- Again here.

• Yes per above. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "has been described as 'worthy of El Greco'". -- By who?

• Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "From this, we can at least infer that the painting was completed before this date." -- Who's "we"? Suggest reworking this.

• Its a mathematical calculation, so have removed the "we". Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "in person Mariana was engaging and fun loving." -- says who?

  Almost all surviving first hand recollections, but will clarify. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto^Talk 21:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, but I've been away. I have just received Ian's ping asking for an update and note the changes made above, which I thank Ceoil for. If there is a requirement to either promote or archive this now, then I'm very sorry, but at this point I'm leaning towards an oppose on the grounds of prose. It still seems to be very choppy and there are still a few pronouns leading paragraphs (see the last two in the "description" section, for example). Ive conducted a couple of edits to this now to help out somewhat, of of which is swapping a euphemism, something that really shouldn't exist in an article this close to FA. I've also rewritten a large chunk in the last paragraph in the first section, which I'd ask the nominator to check as interpretation was used in the absence of books. For example:

• "When Ferdinand III requested a portrait of his daughter, Philip asked Velázquez to return from his 1649–50 visit to Italy to Madrid as soon as possible" -- Was he on holiday for an entire year? If not, why mention the year span at all? It gets in the way, in my opinion. Mention when he was asked to return if you have to mention it at all.

the trip to Italy is very well known and often users to categorize his works...ie before, during, after. Also it indicates the importance of the work that he returned from an extended trip.Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The marriage presented many difficulties for the Spanish court" -- why is the court fussed about a marriage? I'm not familiar with foreign marriages in the Early Modern period, did the courts marry people? Why not the church? Would it have something to do with this?

of course the royal court is interested in securing a successor for their king. Ceoil (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, nothing. They may well be interested, but for the reader it would be interesting to know which type of court you are talking about. There will be those not familiar with how such things work. Cassianto^Talk 08:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "From this, the painting came be assumed as finished before this date." -- typos like this

shouldn't be in an article that is on the verge of promotion to FA. Please check throughly for any existing ones.

• "They also had two sons. Felipe Próspero was the original heir to the throne, but died in 1661 aged 3 years. Charles, the future Charles II of Spain, was born later that year." Why not swap full stops for semicolons? The sentences are linked and it would flow much better.

doneCeoil (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• assumed by who? Cassianto^Talk 12:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these few things can be sorted before the time comes for the coords to make a decision, then I'd be happy to support. If not, I would ask that this article be archived. Cassianto^Talk 11:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon final read through and on the back of the recent changes. Anything else can be addressed post FAC. Cassianto^Talk 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• thanks for the thorough review which gas helped the page enormously. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alongside her, a clock rests on scarlet drapery." It looks to me behind her.

  Yes Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems odd to name her first fiancé in the lead but not her husband. PS I see that she married Philip, but this is not clear. I would just say "married" rather than "planned" in the lead and "negotiated" in the main text, which could mean that he was arranging a marriage to someone else.

  Makes better sense. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No change needed, but the rules of consanguinity were remarkably relaxed in this period. Around the year 1000, the Pope forced King Robert II of France to accept annulment of his marriage because his wife was his second cousin. In other cases, marriage to a third cousin was prohibited.

  I may incorporate this into a note; looking for a source. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would give the year of her husband's death in the lead.

  done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Accession is the wrong word. He acceded when his father died. I suggest "came of age".

  done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "(her mother Maria Anna of Spain was Philip's sister)". You said this in the previous paragraph.

  removed Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You should give the year of their marriage.

  done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention her daughter and son who died in this paragraph, but not Charles and any other children.

  expanded 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Mariana had a difficult life; she and Philip did not meet before their marriage, and found little in common, and she was regent to a physically weak son. Her marriage presented many difficulties for the Spanish court." Her regency is out of place in the middle of a discussion of her marriage.

  removed and regiged. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696." This is clumsily worded. Also, the article on Charles said that he had mental disabilities, which would have been far more important to a ruler. I suggest. "Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from mental and physical disabilities, and the Spanish monarchy allowed women to play a powerful role in government, so Mariana was able to dominate the political life of Spain until her own death in 1696."

  this wording is much better, thank you. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "Charles was infirm throughout his life" be more accurate? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although Mariana had extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery, a fact that was much commented on during her lifetime, her married life was pressured by the need to produce a male heir. A more sympathetic, modern, view is that she was a rather plain looking woman in an unhappy marriage, perhaps lacking in much of the elegance that Velázquez attributed to her." I am not clear why you are suggesting that the modern view is different. Both seem to be true from what you say.

  Reworded but not done, there is a point to be articulated....thinking.... Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many duplicate links. I do not know why duplink does not highlight the second mention of Maria Theresa. You only link Philip Prospero at his second mention.

  done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "in person Mariana was engaging and fun loving" This seems to contradict some of your other comments about her. Maybe she was not so unhappy?

  I think she was engaging by nature, but became ground down. It happens. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think you need separate columns for the two notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these Dudley; lots of food for thought there, and hopeful the responses that improved the page. Will let you know when am ready for you to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dudley Miles:, all addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of review but currently lacking declarations of support... looking to tie up loose ends here and determine readiness. @Ewulp, Wehwalt, Cassianto, and Dudley Miles:—do you have any more feedback? --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WereSpielChequers also offered partial support, unbolded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, though with the caveat that "the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject." ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're about there now but not sure if we've completed a source review -- KJP1, you appeared to be checking formatting, were you also signing off on reliability? If not we need someone to check that pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - pleased to pick this up but it will have to wait till tomorrow as I’m now busy opening presents. Happy Holidays! KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• Just a query, and if it's a MoS thing just ignore me coz' I probably won't know what I'm talking about, but is there any reason why the page references in the notes aren't just given as citations, rather than being written out in full?

changed to in-line now. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

• Cite 4a - If I'm being picky, while the source certainly supports the date of Balthasar Charles's death, it doesn't actually say that this was from smallpox. Nor does it support the fact that the death occurred two months after his betrothal to Mariana. I happen to know that both these facts are true, but verifiability is all! Is there another source that could be wheeled in to confirm these latter two points.

• source says “Don Balthasar Charles died of smallpox on the 9 October 1646.” Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Betrothal now sourced as June 1646. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - My bad! Why is the opening, where it mentions smallpox, in small print! It's like a bloody insurance document. KJP1 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite 21a - I think there's a copy and paste error here with the page number. On my reading, page 52 is all about painting technique, and the reference to Maria's daughter's marriage appears on page 46

changed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite 34 - this certainly takes me to the right image, that of the queen in mourning, but I'm not actually seeing Cite 34 in the text. What is it supporting? Am I missing something?

it’s supporting the attribution of followers/workshop and the location, and has a provenance section. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Giorgia Mancini - again being uber-picky, I think the Location/Publisher order should be "London" then "National Gallery", following Ackroyd, Portus and Prohaska.

reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Silvia Mitchell - This one isn't quite clear to me. First, I think we're missing a location. I'm guessing Ashgate is these guys, Ashgate Publishing, now part of Routledge, and that the work is one in this series, [7]. Does it not have an identifier? Others appear to have isbns, [8]. In short, I think we need a location and an isbn.

• done; loc and isbn visible here. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked all the online sources. Not able to check the book sources but, given the provenance, I'm not concerned. If Ceoil could have a look at the above comments/queries, I'd then be very pleased to sign off the Source review. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1, will let you know when complete. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, think I have all these now. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - Many thanks for the very prompt responses. Just one quick one, and I'm really sorry if I'm being dumb, but where is Cite 37 (formerly Cite 34) in the inline text? When I click on the little "Jump up" hat to the right of the cite, it doesn't take me anywhere and I can't see it in the main body. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it was in an image ALT! Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I was going mad. All done indeed, and happy to sign off the Source review. Congrats. When I think I was commenting from Spain back in October, this one's been a bit of a slog. KJP1 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, it was worth the excellent feedback. Thank you very much. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, KJP1, it looks like you've performed a spotcheck of sources for accurate use, which is great, but are you signing off on the reliability of the sources per my earlier comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - yep, I’m happy both with the reliability of the sources themselves, and the uses to which they’ve been put. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.