Talk:To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 22, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
February 12, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Television: Nickelodeon 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.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Animation: American / Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King Retrolord! I'm so glad and grateful to you for taking time to review this article which I nominated. I hope everything for this article to pass your and the GA standards. Thanks! :) Mediran (t • c) 11:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Feel free to reply directly under each of the points below, and you can mark things as Done or Not done if you want too.

"in Nickelodeon in the" On Nickelodeon? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done changed to "on Nickelodeon".
" square pants have shrunk " I think just change to "pants", ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done changed to as simple as "pants" as suggested.
Plot summary section should have a ref at the end of the second para, citing the epiosode ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done
bluelink Sandy? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"The premiere starts with "To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants" at 8 pm." That sentence is out of place, could you rewrite?
Done
can you add references for the infobox? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Can you link the next and previous eps in the infobox? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Thanks, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too! I hope everything is good enough for this article to pass this GAN. :) Mediran (t • c) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good, pass! ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the pass! Cheers! :) Mediran (t • c) 12:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I don't think To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants is a notable article for Wikipedia. This episode isn't double-length and isn't a special. It isn't popular or critically acclaimed like Band Geeks, and it has a score of 7.3 on TV.com. You could argue that it's "notable" because it has a DVD release based on it, but so did Home Sweet Pineapple and Whale of a Birthday, two other episodes that don't have pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrooge200 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this meets the GA criteria. The 2013 review was very brief and shallow, and I think there are significant issues here. Zap2it.com, DVD Talk, TVShowsOnDVD.com, blogcritic, KidzWorld, and the Facebook ref all look a bit dubious as sources. A few claims in the article (plot summary actually doesn't need inline citations, as it's presumed to be sourced to the episode itself), such as the statement that it was the 116th article, need cited. A lot of the refs are dead. The plot summary is disproportionatly wrong. There is are outstanding tags. I'm just not seeing how this is a GA under modern standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the three reviewers in Reception are reliable then I think everything is fixable, and I don't know enough to say whether they are. Deadrefs are solvable, 116 shouldn't have a {{citation needed}} tag because it's routine calculation, it's not clear at a glance that either of the "multiple issues" tags are actionable. I believe Zap2it is reliable and many of the dubious sources are just there to support simple factual claims about DVD releases where primary sources can be acceptably cited instead. I'm not sure what makes the plot summary "disproportionately wrong"—could you expand? But overall, I'd say the test of this is whether it's notable; to that end, I'd recommend nominating it for deletion instead. It's either non-notable or can be made as comprehensive as is possible without inordinately much further work. I notice that most of the SpongeBob episode articles will likely suffer with the same problems so perhaps a wider discussion or bulk AfD would be appropriate at some point. — Bilorv (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm-- any update? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eddie891 and Hog Farm: a relevant development is talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Spongebob episode articles, which could use more attention. — Bilorv (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Eddie891 and Bilorv: - "disproportionally wrong" was a typo for "disproportionally long". I'm not convinced that a plot summary that appears to me to be longer than the rest of the article body combined is really appropriate for a GA (if it does turn out to be a problem, its fixable). I'm also not familiar enough with the sources to make a definitive call on reliability, although based on [1] I'd say the earliest blogcritics stuff is probably non-RS, but without a working link to the specific article in question, it's hard to judge the merits of that single article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hog Farm: your thoughts would be appreciated at the WPTV discussion I linked above, because presumably these issues raised will apply to all GA Spongebob episode articles, at the least. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting, because this isn't a GA-quality article, but really I support deletion and a wider treatment of the issue. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting per nom. Too bad, too early for a GA, with unreliable sources and many issues. Chompy Ace 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting per the terrible sourcing alone, and perhaps to establish a precedent for other articles like it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]