Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One Day at HorrorLand/archive1

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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2022 [1].

One Day at HorrorLand[edit]

Nominator(s): SL93 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the few individually notable Goosebumps books and it was brought to GA status by me in 2013. I have expanded it more and fixed various errors. The article is currently 6,243 characters and 1,038 words, but I feel that it is long enough in comparison to the vast amount of books in the series that are non-notable based on my research (and reading the series since second grade years ago). This book is one of only five original Goosebumps books to have significant coverage out of 62 of them. In relation to all Goosebumps books which total around 150 or so, there is only one extra book that has significant coverage. I'm actually impressed that I managed to find so much coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Kavyansh – Pass[edit]

File:One Day at Horrorland.jpg needs a stronger non-free image rationale (nfir). "n.a." is not a suitable justification. Please fill all the entries there Suggesting to see few recently passed book-article's cover image nfir, like File:A Beautiful Crime book cover.jpg (article currently on the main page as TFA!). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh The file uploader added that automatically during the image upload process without my input back in 2013. I have fixed the image issues. As for the image source, I'm not sure if the URL now being a dead link is acceptable. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just boldly added the archived link. I'd say that the image review has been passed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't realize it could be used for image space. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

~~Will take a look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Will be happy to take another look whenever it comes back to FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post comments by this time next week, please ping me as a reminder. I do have one question. The lead describes this as a novella and I was always under the impression that Goosebumps were novels. Yes, these books are short, but that is because they are children's books, and I do not associate children's books with novellas. I find those to be separate categories. What is the rationale behind calling One Day at Horrorland a novella and are there any citations to support this categorization? Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Whatever my 2013 rationale was, I forgot it. I can change it to novel. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I would advise you to change it as I would not consider this to be a novella. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. SL93 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The publication date (i.e. February 1994) is only mentioned in the infobox and it is not supported by a citation.

It is now referenced and in the article text also. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since You Can't Scare Me is a redirect, I do not think it needs to be linked in the infobox, especially since Why I'm Afraid Of Bees is not linked even though a redirect also exists for that one.

I removed the redirect. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prose in the lead would benefit from further revision. For instance, the actual plot of this book is not mentioned.
I am uncertain about the "Publications" section since it is one, short paragraph. If further information about the publication process is unknown, I would consider folding this section into the "Adapations" section to avoid having such a short section.

Now merged. SL93 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would re-examine this sentence: Despite Jennifer Feigelman, of Kliatt, writing that the adaptation has "frenetic lines and mismatched panel sizing", she said that the graphic novel, in which the adaptation is contained, is "destined to be a hit with the "tween" crowd". I find it to be awkwardly worded and I would suggest that you revise it.

Done. SL93 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on the Teen Vogue review only mentions its placement on the list when the author actually goes into more detail. They call it the best R. L. Stine book and praise the immersion and writing so I would include this information in the article.

Done. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, I think the Complex.com review could be better represented in the prose. When I read the review, I thought it was notable how he praised the book as a take on Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes and his praise for the reveal that the monsters were filming the family for their own show (which he connected to The Truman Show and reality television and described as "ahead of its time".

Done. SL93 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the Ashley Rickards part is a fun story, I am not completely convinced that it is notable enough to be included in this article. If there was a greater discussion on how this book influenced more people, then I would be more convinced, but right now, it does not really fit this article in my opinion.

I removed those two sentences. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to look through the following citation ("Are you afraid of the dark? Children's horror anthology series in the 1990s") as it has a good deal of discussion on the television adaptation.
While this is not required for the FAC, I would encourage you to archive the web citations to avoid link rot and death as that can be a pain to handle in the future. The books and newspapers.com citations do not need to be archived.

I have only done a very brief overview of the article. I will do a deeper dive sometime next week. Here are some comments for the time being. I hope that they are helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a few of the issues and will work on the others soon. I'm glad that I found The Art of Goosebumps on Google Books so that I can add information on the cover art as well - although I'm thinking of buying a physical copy as an almost life-long fan of Goosebumps. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking through my review. I understand what you mean. I have bought similar books for things that I love too. I would encourage you to be consistent with how you format the citations for books. The citation for Tje Art of Goosebumps and the one for Viewer Beware! The Goosebumps TV Companion are very different, and they should be consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Ok. I will work on that. Google Books didn't include the ISBN for Viewer Beware!, but I just managed to find it elsewhere so I can get it added to the citation. SL93 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually recommend that you withdraw this FAC. I am suggesting this because of two factors: 1) the ongoing discussion on the article's notability on the talk page and 2) I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA yet and I think the article would benefit from further copy-editing outside of the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Well, when would I be able to bring it back once the issues are solved? I don't know what the prose issues are if no one tells me. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to withdraw the nomination, there is the two-week waiting period before you are allowed to nominate any FAC. You could request a copy-edit from the Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors. If you pursue this route, I would note in your request that this copy-edit is for a FAC and the copy-editor will look through the article with that in mind.
The lead is not well-written or organized and lacks key information (i.e. the plot summary). The article itself could use a copy-edit, and while the peer review did not attract any reviewers, I think it would best to try another peer review before opening another FAC. However, the choice to withdraw this FAC or not is ultimately up to you.
I would also encourage you to be more mindful of how you interact with other editors and to not take it personally. I know that is difficult and I have certainly been very defensive and responded poorly in the past, but I would try to take time to think things through. Again, I understand how that can be difficult, but I believe it is a very important skill to have on Wikipedia since this is process is based on collaboration and listening and responding to different people. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 This FA can be withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping the FAC coordinators (@FAC coordinators: ) to let them know that the nominator would like this FAC to be withdrawn. I am not a FAC coordinator so I do not have the power to archive a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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