Talk:Jeannie (TV series)

Fair use rationale for Image:Animated Jeannie.JPG

Image:Animated Jeannie.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Classic Collection

I want information about the Home video release of Jeannie on Hanna-Barbera Classic Collection by Warner Home Video and Warner Archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.93.115 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• If you could provide a reliable source for it, I will add it to the article. I unfortunately could not find any information on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeannie (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First read-through

Hello, Aoba47 I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. I have to say upon my first read-through's I'm impressed with this article, it seems very well sourced and is very well written. That said, I don't have much to complain about just a few points to address:

• The image in the Infobox should use {{Non-free title card}} as licensing as opposed to {{Non-free logo}}.

• Replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• The image in the Infobox also does not need a caption per the instructions as it is the title card.

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also per Infobox instructons the "Related shows" section should only be used for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences." It doesn't appear to me that anything listed there meets those requirements.

• Understandable. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• In the lead the dates of the series run both have a year. I think the first year could be excluded to read "from September 8, to December 22, 1973" to get the same point across (similar to the Infobox.)

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• The premise and characters section reads "In Jeannie, high school student Corey Anders discovers Jeannie's bottle while surfing and draws the title character out of it." The link to "the title character" just redirects to I Dream of Jeannie which is about the television series not and not about the character.

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• In the episodes section can I suggest using {{Episode table}} over the raw code?

• Replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• The navboxes at the end of the article, {{Children's programming on CBS in the 1970s}} does not include a link to this article. Any reason why?

• I have added it to the navbox. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Lastly, the article includes Category:1973 American television series debuts and Category:1975 American television series endings, generally these categories are only used for first runs and not repeats/syndication so Category:1973 American television series endings should be used over '75.

• I have removed the 1975 part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said, not much to critique about. Other than that the article seems amazing and I'll pass it pending the issues above being addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @TheDoctorWho: Thank you for the review! I greatly appreciate t > I have addressed all of your comments so far. I hope you are having a great day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

GA List

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Aoba47: Compared the article with the list above and almost everything passes. I'm a little concerned with this... There's an 81% copyright match to IMDb. I ran it again against a previous version () and there's a 95% percent match. It appears that was from before you began editing the article but do you know if these summaries were copied from IMDb? TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the message. I would not be surprised if the original episode summaries were copied directly from IMDb (or even if the opposite happened). I have never seen an episode of this particular show so I had to rely on other websites' episode summaries. I tried to paraphrase it so it would be more unique while still retaining the same information. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering it's not an exact copy I'll accept. Everything else looks good! I'll finish up with closing this, congratulations on your hard work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem, you're always a pleasure to work with! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jellystone!

@Lampboy65: Could you please provide a source for the Jellystone! sentence? I could not find anything about it after a Google search, and this is not covered in the article on the show. The information should have a citation, and I would be more than happy to put in the citation if you know one. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Jeannie (TV series)

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.

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

As per the rationale of the original GA nominator User:Aoba47, the removal of a "Critical reception"-type section has left this article incomplete and therefore failing GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment why was the critical reception removed anyway? I went through it and didn't see any problems with it being there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  It was removed in 2021 by @EggContestWinner: with this edit. They did not use an edit summary. I disagreed with a majority of their edits to the article (with some examples here and here). I believe that they introduced WP:NPOV issues, as they both downplayed the negative reviews (by outright removing them in one instance) and added how the show was/is a popular favorite without a citation to support that information. At the time, I was uncertain on how to handle this as I did not want to cause an edit war. I was also frankly getting frustrated by it, so I just walked away from the article. Apologies for that as I should have handled it better at the time or reached out to other editors to get their opinions on it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: with the "critical reception" section restored, do you feel all GAR concerns have been addressed? I see no other issues of note in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47, are your concerns resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for the ping and @TenPoundHammer: thank you for restoring the section and looking through the article. My concerns have been resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

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.