Talk:Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone

Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 19, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 July 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that an episode of the children's TV show Arthur featuring a same-sex wedding was not aired on Alabama's PBS network?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone.

Wikipedia

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

I can understand someone wants to start an article about the episode due to its LGBT theme, but the details about the episode can be satisfied in the Arthur article and its episode list. The Arthur spinoff of Postcards from Buster had an episode titled Sugartime!. Sugartime! generated more controversy due to its live action scene of showing a same-sex couple. Even with the controversy that paled to Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone, the episode did not garner enough notability to have its own article. The subject of that episode was satisfied in the show's article. FunksBrother (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that an episode of the children's TV show Arthur featuring a same-sex wedding was not aired on Alabama's PBS network? Source: Crain 2019: "Alabama Public Television chose not to air PBS’s Arthur episode that included a same-sex marriage."
- Reviewed: The Turbulent Term of Tyke Tiler

Converted from a redirect by Bobamnertiopsis (talk). Self-nominated at 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article is new and long enough, sourced and neutral, and meets DYK-relevant policies – Earwig finds only quotes and titles. The hook is clear, sourced, neutral, and interesting. This is good to go! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ezlev, thanks for the review. Just popping by to note that I've now begun a QPQ. Thanks! —⁠Collin^{t c} 22:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Collin, I don't know how I missed that! All's well since you've started one anyway, though – thanks. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.

North8000 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk

Include a sentence of Mr. Ratburn turning into the Hulk 174.24.104.56 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is GhostRiver, and I'll be carrying out this good article review. Your nomination will be assessed against the good article criteria, and I will provide feedback to help this article reach GA quality. Once I complete my preliminary review, you will have 7 days to respond to my suggestions before I deliver a final verdict. Please ping me when you are finished. — Ghost River 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

Plot

Production and release

Censorship

Reception

Notes and references

General comments

Earwig copyvio score looks good, only matches are for the episode title and a cited direct quote
No images in article, so image criteria N/A
- That being said, you can include an appropriately low-res, fair use screenshot of the episode, perhaps of Mr. Ratburn and Patrick walking down the aisle. See "Free Churro" and "The View from Halfway Down" as a couple examples of this.
  - Thanks for starting the review GhostRiver! I've added an image (uploaded too large, with the knowledge that the bot will downscale to an appropriate size in the next few days) and provided a citation to support its inclusion in the infobox. —⁠Collin^{t c} 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Bobamnertiopsis, I wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about this review. Last week I suffered a death in the family and I've been taking time to grieve. Thank you for your understanding. — Ghost River 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hey GhostRiver, by chance I was checking on this review today and saw the banner on your talkpage. Please take all the time you need. I'm so sorry for your loss. —⁠Collin^{t c} 22:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

GhostRiver, Collin, I was wondering whether this review might be continuing soon. I notice that GhostRiver has recently been doing some editing. It would be great to get this moving again. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm around for edits at GhostRiver's convenience. Thanks for checking in BlueMoonset. —⁠Collin^{t c} 21:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed

Per User talk:GhostRiver#Incomplete GA reviews, GhostRiver has asked me to mark this review as available for a new reviewer to take over; she is "not in the headspace" to be doing reviews. Thank you for considering doing this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis, I'll take this one. To keep things organized, I'm going to close this review and open a new one at Talk:Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone/GA2. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a review posted here shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis, the review is below. As you might have suspected, the main thing to look at is the article's length and whether its coverage is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis, I opened this up to see where it was at, and it looks like you've addressed everything. I'll mark it as a good article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, thanks! I'll probably do a little more work on it yet but I do think I hit all the points you mentioned at least somewhat, and if you're satisfied it meets GA criteria then I'm happy. Thanks for the thorough review! —⁠Collin^{t c} 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

I suggest reorganizing the lead. The thing that makes the episode notable—the same-sex marriage—should probably be first mentioned no later than the second sentence. It might flow better if you sort it by topic, so that the first paragraph details its real world notability, and then the second paragraph can be a 2–4 sentence summary of the plot.
when suddenly he and Patty appear – "suddenly" doesn't add anything and can be removed.
they slip a note purporting to be from Mr. Ratburn – This should specify that it was a romantic poem.
"broadcast" is a better heading for a TV episode than "release"
I know that this is in part an effect of the limited information, but try to avoid 1–2 sentence paragraphs.
though not the first appearance of gay characters in an Arthur property. A 2005 episode of the spinoff show – It would be clearer if there was one sentence about Arthur and then one sentence about Postcards from Buster.
Given how short the section is, the "censorship" subheading probably isn't necessary.

Verifiable with no original research

Metro is considered to be generally unreliable. The claim it supports either needs a more reliable source, or it should be removed.

Spotchecks:

Frank – Good.
Crain – In its first use, it only seems to support the premiere date. That whole sentence can just be cited by Rotten Tomatoes. Otherwise good.
Aviles – Good.

Broad in its coverage

This is the one we'll need to look at more closely. While a GA isn't required to be comprehensive, shorter articles are generally expected to either be expanded or to already cover everything in the sources. To start, I suggest really mining the sources that are in the article to get everything you can out of them.

A few ideas for things to look for:

Production: Who else worked on this episode besides Hirsch and Lynch? When and how did they decide to have Mr. Ratburn get married and to feature a same-sex marriage?
Themes: If possible, the article could cover how it addresses same-sex marriage in more detail, and elaborate on any lessons that the characters learned. Maybe some coverage of recent developments in same-sex representation on television, specifically developments mentioned in articles about this episode.
Reception: Have any other critics talked about this episode? Did any organizations address it besides GLAAD and these specific religious organizations? Is there any information about how many people watched its premiere?

I looked through a few sources, and these are the ones I found that seem to have useful info:

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight, and the article does not present its own opinions.

Stable

No disputes.

Illustrated

The picture is relevant and it has a non-free use rationale. If possible, it might be worth rewording the caption so it conveys the same idea without being so wordy.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.