Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Bitch Is Back (Veronica Mars)/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2016 [1].

The Bitch Is Back (Veronica Mars)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Johanna(talk to me!) 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all FAC participants! This article is about the series finale of Veronica Mars. Revamping episode articles for this television series has been my biggest project since I started editing. This is my first FAC candidacy within this topic, although I have nearly thirty GAs that are on VM episode articles. I believe that it is a very comprehensive article (my longest episode article) that meets all the criteria. Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! Johanna(talk to me!) 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Happy to offer a review with the caveat that I have only heard of this programme through seeing your GA nominations!

  • "he beat up Piz" Is "beat up" not a little vernacular?
  • Replaced with "assaulted"
  • Done.
  • "Keith (Enrico Colantoni) faces the upcoming Sheriff's election." Is he standing? It's not fully clear from the lead in what way he is "facing" this.
  • Done. See my new wording.
  • "the series was announced that it would not return for a fourth season in any form at the network's Upfront conference several days before the episode's airing" This is difficult to follow. I don't understand what the first few words mean, and perhaps you could specify the name of the episode.
  • Simplified and specified.
  • "Thomas and Ruggiero had to remove seven minutes of material from the original cut, and they wanted to create an ambiguous finale that did not resolve everything neatly." Are these things related?
  • No, so I split it into two sentences.
  • This doesn't bother me too much, but I know some people like to keep plot sections purely in-universe; the opening clause would be problematic from that perspective. Just a heads-up.
  • "denies that this is the truth" What is? Do you mean something like "denies that the tape is authentic"?
  • "did not upload the tape" Can you upload a tape? "upload the footage", maybe? Or even "upload the footage to the internet"?
  • You only name one actor in the plot section- consistency would be good!
  • "Keith questions Veronica about whether or not she is in trouble" I'm not clear on what is meant, here.
  • "leading to Logan beating him up" Again, a little informal
  • "Veronica returns the tape to Jake Kane on the condition that he does not tell her father" Who doesn't tell whose father what?
  • I'm struggling with the plot; what charges are being pressed against Keith?
  • "while the scene featured heavy interference by Fields" I don't follow
  • "finalizing the final script" A bit repetitive.
  • "including a scene between Veronica and Leo" Do you mean something like "including a scene featuring dialogue between Veronica and Leo"? Or perhaps "including a scene featuring Veronica and Leo"?
  • "When writing the episode, he tried to create an episode so ambiguous note that it would be difficult for The CW not to renew the show." Clumsy
  • "In promos for the episode" "Promos" is informal
  • "the day after the series' return" What does this mean?
  • It was a clumsily written reference to a hiatus. Changed.
  • "the CW", "The CW" or just "CW"? You're inconsistent
  • "denied this testimony" That's not testimony
  • "in medias res" What does that mean?
  • "Veronica talking to a teacher, donning a teenage disguise" She's putting a disguise on as she's talking to the teacher? The teacher is putting on a disguise as (s)he talks to Veronica? One party is disguised as a teenager at the time?
  • "The pitch was presented to the network on May 2, 2007." Are you taking sides, here?
  • I am honestly not sure what you mean. What are you referring to? Considering that Thomas and a network representative confirmed the date, I think it's safe to assume that that happened. However, if you want, I can just say that it was scheduled to be presented on that date.
  • "At the CW Upfront conference, where the network announces its lineup for the following television season, critic Michael Ausiello asked Ostroff about the fate of the show, to which she responded that it was possible that Thomas and Bell were going to work together on another show, although that possibility was unlikely." Could this sentence be split?
  • "attribute this to the writers" It would be odd not to attribute it to the writers; do you mean that he did not blame or criticise the writers for this?
  • "still take away important themes" Do people take themes from episodes? You can identify themes, and you can take messages
  • "early noir influences" Wikilink?
  • "returned to the form of the show's earlier episodes for the show" What does this mean?
  • I think the long quote from Kaiser could probably be converted into a blockquote.
  • "believing that it showed how the pair were not in fact that different after all" Which pair?
  • "a good season finale that did not work as a series finale" I don't follow.
  • "positive and ambiguous towards the episode" What does this mean?
  • "However, she did not view the finale as being resentful" How can a finale be resentful? Why "however"?
  • "The TV Addict commended" I'm not keen on this kind of personification; also, you italicise the name in the footnote. Italics or not?
  • "she praised the episode if it had been a season finale" What does this mean?
  • As a general comment on the reception section: Perhaps it would be better to structure it thematically, rather than by reviewer.
  • Also, quotes should always be cited, even if they appear in captions!

I think FA might be achievable here, but it needs a smidge more work yet. Please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Hi again Josh! I have fixed most of your comments. Everything that does not have an inline citation has been done, but read my replies to your comments to see what I have left. I have to write a Themes section, cite quotes, and sort the reception section into themes. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Josh's copy editing has improved the article but the prose still falls well below FA standard. I think it needs much more then a smidge. The style is amateurish and in places unintelligible. It needs too much work for corrections to take place at FAC. I suggest withdrawal. Graham Beards (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Graham Beards: I think you'll be surprised at how much I can get done in a short amount of time. :) If you could point me towards a few sections/paragraphs that need work, that would be helpful. I have responded to all of Josh's prose comments to me, which should have fixed at least some of your concerns. However, I will learn from this mistake and get my VM articles copyedited before taking them to FAC. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not going to oblige. The article is not ready for nomination and FAC is not the place to do all this work. It is not fair on other nominations, which have been better prepared. I suggest withdrawal and renomination after substantial improvements. Graham Beards (talk) 22:35, 10 April 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/The_Bitch_Is_Back_(Veronica_Mars)/archive1&oldid=1136457909"