Talk:It's Super Effective (podcast)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 17:15, 14 July 2012 by Bikini Miltank (talk | contribs) (Changes to the article: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

Someone placed a banner disputing the neutrality of this article, calling for discussion on that subject here on the talk page. No one has done that yet, so I thought I would start. I understand the worry, as this has been edited by those who are affiliated with the subject matter (myself included,) but I would hesitate to say it is too far from neutral. However, obviously my opinion is a bit biased. Thoughts on what (if anything) needs changing? I apologize if this isn't protocol for talk pages. I'm new to them.

Traf12 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the content on the podcast's bulbapedia page is factualy. Perhaps in the first section that mentions the podcast as "having taken the top Pokémon podcast spot from The Pallet Tribune's WTPT - Pokémon Radio" may seem bias. Maybe this needs to be cited for credibility which will eliminate any percieved bias

Sprucey (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking the top spot would probably refer to the amount of reviews in iTunes. While WTPT has 159 reviews (with a 4.5 star rating), ISE has 244 reviews (with a 5 star rating). WTPT also has 250+ fans on Facebook, while ISE has over 1400 fans. Finally WTPT has 400 followers on Twitter, while ISE has over 2000. I think those are all good cites for creditability.

Finally - I disagree with how the awards are hidden. Those can be cited and various other podcasts did compete to win both times. If an artist won a grammy or an oscar, those would be featured on their said Wikipeida. It would be the same here. The "Shorty" awards is a hosted and sponsored event, therefor that sound stand.

Committhistomemory (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Who can we talk to about what needs to be done on behalf of ISE or Bulbapedia to resolve this? GrimmDark (talk)

Changes to the article

Okay, I took a look at the article and made some changes. The main problems were that it did read a little like an advertisement, and also felt like an infodump, with lots and lots of lists that were all but meaningless without context. So here's what I've done:

  • A new "Reception" section to deal with the accolades the podcast has achieved. This means that the blurb concerning its popularity is no longer right at the top, which makes the article feel less than an ad, and I've also restored the paragraph about awards, and put it here. Obviously if the podcast attracted any negative attention or controversy, this would also be the place for it.
  • The various lists of co-hosts have been placed with the staff, and made into sentences so that they don't stretch the page so much.
  • The website stuff has been hidden until the many items on the list can be elaborated upon. At the moment it's not really doing anything other than taking up space: these list items are meaningless without descriptions.
  • Some stuff has been reordered. The show's features really should be the first information presented. These could also do with some expansion.

I considered getting rid of the in-jokes and the table of episode titles, but these can stay for now. However, there needs to be more actual information about the show and its content to counterbalance this. At the moment the in-jokes section is twice as long as the features section. This really shouldn't be the case.

As it stands, I think the article is reasonably neutral and I've removed the POV tag. I hope this satisfies all concerned. Bikini Miltank (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)