# Talk:What Was Missing

This review is transcluded from Talk:What Was Missing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
No problems.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Ok.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Ok.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Ok.

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'll pass it since I couldn't find any major issue that I couldn't correct by myself. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the epicenter of "controversy" on the main article is this episode why not merge that controversy here and get the taint of controversy off the main article page. Yes I said taint, because I really don't think that section was encyclopedic and still think the "controversy" is giving undue weight to a minority opinion. However that as already discussed, I think it reasonable to merge these. Looks like most of the content of the controversy section was recycled on this article anyway.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm on your side here. "Controversy", in the main series article, implies that there is a controversy concerning the whole series. Rather, the "controversy" is referring to a single episode. As such, it makes sense that the section be moved here (it already is), since its an article entirely about the episode. I feel that way, the "undue" weight problem is gone (surely, it's not undue for the episode... maybe it is for the series). I was the one who made the section to begin with (I know that means squat), but I think it should really be here.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It already is here. The information itself, that is. And if the section is to be removed I still believe the controversy surrounding the article can and should be included under the section of "critical reception" in the main article. To remove any mention of it from the main article would be, in my opinion, uncalled for. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be moved and I've already stated my position, it's still undue weight, especially on main article a somewhat isolated to a single episode controversy that didn't transcend the show in it's entirety. So I think leaving it there is uncalled for.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is, it happened and it's sourced. The show has a page on how it's perceived by publics and critics alike, "perception", this was a quite widely covered controversy that therefore ought to be mentioned under reception. Whether or not an entire section in the main reason is called for, can be argued. However this merging proposal makes no sense as the entire section is already on the WWM-article here. There is nothing left to be merged; what you are talking about is removing the section from the main article. Something that was discussed a year ago already, after which it was decided it would be kept. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me remind that this episode didn't have it's own article at the time of previous discussion now it does. Perfectly suitable to merge it with this page. It doesn't need to reiterated in several places. still think think undue weight and now have soapbox concerns. This would be the ideal situation to merge even one of the proponents of keeping  Gen. Quon planted the seed of the merge idea. I fully concur, the series in it's entirety does not have a alleged controversy, only a single episode and in reality in was more to do with online comments on a video that was pulled than the actual epidosde itself, more like speculation. This is a encyclopedia not a gossip blog.--0pen$0urce (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I dont understand the issue. i'm sure that everything is resolved. So i dont know why this is an issue. the controversy section is merged to its respected episode article. Unless you want a different merge, i dont see why its necessary. Lucia Black (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Merge means move it, we don't need it regurgitated in 5 different places, the "controversey" has to do with this episode, Look not surprised the "controversy" is here. Why do we need it in 2 places, when the alleged controversey has to do with THIS article, not the main article.
The "controversy" is discussed on this "respected" (by the way that’s almost textbook weasel wording) article, in great length, the problem is it is also on the Shows main page. The crux of the discussion is why o why does Adventure Time need a controversy section for a single article when said article now has it’s own section devoted to exact same information. What is the monthly readership of "Bicth" Magazine 10000, maybe 20000, I bring this up because that is probably the best source. I don't like controversy section to begin with never did, still think pure undue weight to minority opinion. That aside The references were improved after I raised objection, cause the references were a joke, referencing some blog by the show’s creator, unreliable source and one source, make your pick. Then the crux of the "controversy" is comments people posted about a video that no longer exists. That was the controversy, research it did. That aside I wasn't the one who made the suggestion to merge, one of the contributors who was involved and supported keeping the controversy section did.--0pen$0urce (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Again with the sourcing? Wikipedia is pretty clear that legit 'blogs' (as in, websites owned by notable companies, like Frederator) are OK to use.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  21:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe it can also be mentioned in the main site so long that is summarized properly. Lucia Black (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Was this "controversy" carried in any mainstream media?  I don't think it amounted to much of anything, so having a controversy section for it seems rather unneeded.  Dream Focus 20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me started on that, I fought the good fight and I fully concur, it's flimsy and undue weight but I gave up since I don't lobby or soapbox.--0pen$0urce (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is what is considered 'mainstream media'? Is the fact that Fred Seibert, founder of Frederator, gave a public apology, enough? What about the controversy it stirred up at Bitch magazine? Those are pretty big deals. Keep in mind this was before Adventure Time was the zeitgeist it is now.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
That, plus the fact that the show's creator Pendleton Ward also gave a public reaction about it and writers spoke about it. That together with the official statement from Frederator studios and Seibert makes it noteworthy. There would not have been this many statements on it from this many high-profile sources if it was not, in it's own right, noteable. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue isn't mainstream media, it's udue weight. I mention media because the sources are weak and well lack some journalistic neutrality. Lets get to the facts, this started because of comments on a youtube video, which has been pulled by the way, not the episode itself, and moreso not the show as a whole. Essentially a narrow interperetation of something and really the question is what is the controversy? This purported controversey doesn't apply to show as a whole, it's related to a video of a segement of this epidsode, in particular comments made on that video.--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


### Merge discussion closed???
So where is the link to the merge proposal on the mainarticle whoever removed this didn't follow [[WP:merge], Not seeing a consensus was reached to not merge. Apparently like some other contributors I have to hover and maybe police this article--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it since the 'discussion' here has just been two sides throwing temper tantrums about something stupid and nothing productive has come about because of it. I realize that wasn't the protocol, but whatevs. My apologies.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't think there was any "Temper Tantrums" on my part, as I seem to have to repeat endlessly, please focus on content.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Added this. In case anyone removes it. Seems one sided reporting to not mention her tweet about making up stories at panels. Ranze (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)