Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 [1].

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an episode from the American television medical drama Private Practice. It received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape. I have recently created this article, gotten it through GAN, and based the structure and language on FA articles about television episodes. I believe the article meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many reviews and articles written about the episode as possible and incorporating them into a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. I look forward to your feedback. Regards, Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
Comments from Numerounovedant

Will go through the article in the next couple of days.

  • I would suggest you remove the "which some critics found surprising since his most familiar role was Xander Harris on Buffy the Vampire Slayer." part from the lead, because this has no context whatsoever. The article has neither talked about the actor, or the character and is just palin confusing.
  • Not done: Nicholas Brendon and Xander Harris were both clearly mentioned in the "Production" section and the "Critical response" subsection of the "Reception" section so your comment "this has no context whatsoever" is not accurate. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the lead is to summarise sections, without adding ambiguous information. The piece suggesting "which some critics found surprising", is just confusing because up until now the reader doesn't know about the character, the actor, or his previous roles. This just leads to confusion more than anything else, and I'd leave it out of the lead.
  • "The initial broadcast was seen by 10.18 million viewers" - "viewed by"
  • Not done: Your suggest edit would result in an unnecessary repetition of a variation of the word "view". There is no reason to change "seen" for "viewed". Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you could change it to " was viewed by ... people". The use of "seen" sounds really informal.
  • Not done: I have already mentioned this in the lead with the following sentence: ("Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" earned the series, Rhimes and Strickland several awards and nominations and was well received by critics, with Strickland's character and performance praised.) Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad.
No worries. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Left further replies. NumerounovedantTalk 05:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot is fairly well written and has good flow in most parts. Just the one concern, isn't Cooper teh one who escorts King out in teh hallway? (I haven't seen the episode, just went through the scenes on YouTube.) NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Sorry for the intrusion, but I was wondering if you have any further comments to make about this article/nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for having abandoned the review in the middle. But, I have been extremely busy in RL with my college applications and would not be able to provide further detailed comments. However, having gone through the article previously during the FAC I am leaning towards Weak Support. I suggest a source review and spot-check for the article. Notify me once that is done and I can offer my final comments then. Good luck and good job so far. NumerounovedantTalk 18:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: No worries. I understand that we all have a lot to do so I hope I did not come across as rude. Good luck with your college applications! Those are always the worst to get through lol. I will request a source review soon, and I will do a spot-check as well. Thank you again, and good luck with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. NumerounovedantTalk 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: I just want to confirm that your vote remains "weak support" and that you have not updated your stance.
Comments from Carbrera
Promote As the GA reviewer of this article, I heavily agree that this should be promoted to FA-status. I see nothing of major issue with the article, and it seems to pass all of the suggested criteria. Great work! Carbrera (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Carbrera! Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus.
  • File:Shonda Rhimes 2008.jpg: Caption is backed by the wiki text, file of the writer in the section about the production seems pertinent. Free image from Flickr with a good license. Other versions with smaller resolution exist on the web. OK EXIF, other uploads by the Flickr user have variable EXIF but no other indication of commons:Commons:Flickrwashing.
  • File:KaDee Strickland in Brentwood Magazine April 2005.jpg: Caption is backed by article text. File seems to be pertinent as the coverage about that actor is prominent in the pertinent section. Free file, certified by OTRS which I am inclined to trust although I don't have OTRS access myself.

Both files have good ALT text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

  • Sources are reliable for an entertainment-related topic (TV magazines and guides, reviews, award sites, etc.) - OK.
  • Sourcing is consistent and thorough throughout the article - OK.
  • A few brief spotchecks revealed no problems with factual accuracy - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments - done

  • Production - "She praised Adelstein's performance, saying that he provided a 'nuanced portrayal of the sexual assault victim's partner'". Such an assessment should not be based on an involved cast member's opinion (no matter if the opinion is correct or not). You need an outsider's review to verify this appraisal of Adelstein's performance (and it should be moved to "Reception").
  • I had my doubts about this part about as well, so thank you for drawing my attention to it again. I have revised the sentence to better fit the "Production" section. I modified the sentence so it discusses how the episode focused on the character's role as the partner to a rape victim. From the research I have found, Rhimes and other members of the production placed a lot of emphasis on how the rape would affect the entire cast so I find it important to mention in this section. I removed the parts about "nuanced portrayal" as it dangerously approaches the term of peacock language. Let me know if this revision is sufficient, as I can always change it more according to your suggestions.
  • A bit too many quotes and quote-like bits in Production and Reception. It's not an absolute dealbreaker, but you should try to rephrase atleast a few more. Quotes are useful for crucial and/or personal statements, or in situations where paraphrasing might be confusing for the reader. But relatively trivial qualifiers and common statements are better rephrased in your own words. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I have the tendency to over-quote so I will definitely watch out for that in the future. I have reduced the quotes in both the "Production" and "Reception" sections, but please let me know if I should remove more quotes.
    • @GermanJoe: Thank you for the source review and the additional comments. I greatly appreciate both of them, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I have addressed the "Additional comments", but please let me know if I need to make more changes. If you need any help or assistance with any of your projects, I would be more than happy to help at anytime. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by AJona1992
  • "since the characters had had similar traumatic experiences" (second subsection; fourth para)
  • Fixed. That's embarrassing. I don't know how I let that slip in there.
  • "as being worth of an Emmy Award." should change it to "worthy of an Emmy Award" (third subsection; first para)
  • Another silly mistake. Fixed.
  • Is it E! or E! News for both critics used in the article?
  • They both should be E! News for both. I have corrected this as such.
  • Thank you for spotting that. Must have been a hold-over from my first draft.

@AJona1992: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Miyagawa
  • Firstly, I have to hold my hand up. I've got a couple of FA's under my belt, but for the most part I'm still very much learning what it takes for an article to become FA, and I doubt I'd be confident about nominating articles until I've got at least another 10 to 20!! Anyway, here are my comments:
  • In the first sentence of the lead, I'd drop the comma before Private Practice.
  • Changed.
  • Is there a reason why Tim Daly isn't linked in the plot section?
  • Fixed. I must have overlooked him.
  • "since he is primarily known as the..." I'd change this to "since he is primarily for portraying the..."
  • Fixed.
  • Are there any comparisons to be made with the viewing figures received for episodes of Private Practice before and after this one?
  • Added the ratings for the episodes that aired before and after this one.
  • "Critical response was largely positive" I'd add a "The" before critical.
  • Added.
  • "A TVLine post listed" I'd just say "later listed" as I doubt it would have been immediately after the episodes, but later when the nominations were announced.
  • Changed.

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "the immediate aftermath of Charlotte King's (KaDee Strickland) rape": suggest dropping the mention of Strickland because it makes the possessive so clumsy.
  • Done.
  • "revolved around Strickland's character to accurately represent recovery from rape": this needs rewording. What does "revolved to represent" mean? Do you mean something like "revolved around Strickland's character, and was intended to accurately portray a victim's recovery from rape"?
  • Changed to your suggestion.
  • Is Blue Deckert worth a redlink?
  • He appears to be in enough projects so I think a redlink would be worthwhile. Added.
  • "The decision to portray King's resistance to reporting her rape was reached after consultation with the hospital": suggest "with the Rape Treatment Center", as that's what the source says.
  • Thank you for that catch.
  • "According to the reviewer, the first time Freedman saw King's injuries made it seem "like we weren't even watching TV anymore". The reviewer wrote that Strickland's performance was worthy of an Emmy Award." Suggest combining these into a single sentence; perhaps "The reviewer felt that Strickland's performance was worthy of an Emmy, and that the first time Freedman saw King's injuries was "like we weren't even watching TV anymore".
  • Thank you for the suggestion. Changed.
  • The first paragraph of the reception section is focused on Strickland's performance and the comments about Emmys; Marsi's comment about the pacing and Strickland's performance might do better at the end of the first paragraph. That would let you link up TVline, E!News and SpoilerTV's comments, all of which make similar points.
  • Thank you for this suggestion too. I have tried my best to keep the "Reception" section as organized as much as possible around topic so it doesn't seem so random. Done.
  • I think you might consider restructuring the second paragraph to include all the comments directly about the rape. It would also be good if you could make that paragraph a little more like a narrative for the reader; currently it does little more than list several opinions, one after the other. Can you come up with a sentence that summarizes the commentary on the rape? "Most reviewers felt..." or something like that? That would let you combine the information within the paragraph a little more fluidly.
  • I agree with you about this. I have corrected this paragraph with your comments in mind. I also moved up the comments listed it as one of the best episode to the first paragraph as it does not pertain to commentary on rape. Do you think I should combine the second and third paragraphs? I initially separated the two to have the first paragraph focus on the critical response to the rape specifically in this episode while the third paragraph I wanted to focus on the comparisons with other television shows, but I am open to suggestions.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you again for the help. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything I noted above has been fixed; I think this is now FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Did_You_Hear_What_Happened_to_Charlotte_King%3F/archive1&oldid=1138458759"