Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 19:20, 6 December 2012 [1].

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati

[edit]

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second episode of The X-Files's seventh season. It's an interesting little installment, in that it takes many of its elements from Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ and was co-written by star David Duchovny. It was recently promoted to Good Article several months ago and was also promoted to A-Class within the last few weeks. It has undergone both a Peer-Review and a copy-edit, and I feel it is now ready for FA.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • Some of the bibliography publishers are not wikilinked; University Press of Kentucky, Harper Prism, etc
  • "featuring Mulder's severe reaction to the appearance of an alien artifact." -> two issues with this. For one, this is the first instance of Mulder in the lead, so it should be Fox Mulder, and it should be wikilinked. Fox Mulder is wikilinked in the second paragraph. Secondly, "severe reaction to the appearance of an alien artifact", in what way severe? Emotionally, psychologically, physically? Mulder has been seeing alien artifacts since season two, what induced the coma here?
  • "In this episode, Scully returns to Washington, D.C. to find her partner, Mulder, who has been in an alien artifact-induced coma." This is assuming that the reader of the article has seen the first part and reads confusingly (also, what is this "alien artifact" that is mentioned twice in the lead alone?) Should give some idea as to where Scully returned from, or that the episode's plot continues from the events of the prior one.
  • Why are all the images in such varying sizes? (especially since the four in the body are all quite big)
  • I watch a lot of television and movies so concepts like flashbacks and matte paintings are commonplace to me, but the latter isn't exactly a common term.
  • In the second paragraph of the "Casting and effects" section, wikilink Paul Rabwin.
  • "the episode is one of many to feature Mulder as a Christ-like figure", which ones? I already know but it's somewhat of a bold statement to make without further insight being given.
  • "According to Charlton McIlwain"... who is that? Author, TV critic, X-files enthusiast? In what forum did he state this in?
  • What about SFScope's Sarah Stegal's critique of the trilogy of episodes? One of the few pre-2000 writers who always offers some interesting insight.
  • Seems weird that an episode both written and starring Duchovney doesn't actually feature a picture of him (just a general comment). Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Tell me what you think now!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 07:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per changes (though changed one thing slightly). Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think you've done a great job with the article. There are some nit-picky things I think you should address, but you have my support.

  • Support. I reviewed this for its A-Class assessment and was happy with it at that stage, further refinement based on the above comments has sealed the deal. Scope and depth are perfect, and I'm happy with the prose and MOS adherence. I echo the above assertion that citations are not beholden to overlinking; unlike the prose, they aren't expected to be read sequentially but one at a time as and when they're needed. It's the same basic principle as linking repeated entries in multiple table cells over at WP:FT, but that's beside the point. Addendum for those who seem to be concerned with it: I'm also an active member of the relevant wikiproject. GRAPPLE X 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs improvement:

  • Directed by Michael Watkins, "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" was seen by 10.1 percent of the available television audience and was watched by 16.15 million viewers upon its initial broadcast. Seen by and watched by, which both refer to the same population, can be smoothed out. Upon its initial broadcast?
  • The episode received generally mixed to positive reviews from critics. Generally mixed ?? Isn't that the same as mixed ?
  • In this episode—following from the previous episode—Scully returns to Washington, D.C. ... awkward, of course it follows from the previous episode ... appears to be there to get us to link on the previous episode for background, resulting in awkward prose.
  • How is one "forced into betrayal"? Whose partner? What kind of partner (is that like a lover or a squad member?)

That's just the lead ... skipping down to a random section ...

  • twenty-seventh most-watched episode ... why not 27th? What is going on with WP:MOSNUM throughout?
  • To be blunt ... ??? Who is being blunt, the editors who wrote this article? That is editorializing.

Article is not ready for promotion: I suggest a copyedit from someone unrelated to the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried cleaning up the issues you pointed out. I believe I fixed those. I'll try to get a copy-edit ASAP. Just some comments, I tried to clarify many of your questions. What was the overall issue with MOSNUM? I switched the twenty-seventh to 27th, but is more needed to be done? The "To be blunt" was in a direct quote, but I removed it and paraphrased. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the two sites/publishing company's notablitiy that is at issue, it's their reliablity. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that's sourced to the Mad Norwegian text is opinion pieces, rather than facts, so I believe the issue there is judging the merit of the opinions given (why are they cited while the hoi polloi might not agree, etc); as such I'd say that Shearman's position as a television writer would qualify it as an expert source in the field. GRAPPLE X 23:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the space.com stuff? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a professionally owned website which has writing and editorial staff. And the writer for the original article is/was the sites' opinion editor. Again, this is also an opinion piece, so there aren't any "facts" that could ring false. I feel that the site's reputation, the notability, and the company that owns it should provide evidence that it is reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving these out for other reviewers to consider, but I lean reliable on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don't want to be the mean guy who comes along at the end and says the article needs a copy-edit, but I really think this could use one. There are a bunch of grammatical issues that simply shouldn't be here this late in an FAC. I'm not sure how four supporters, who presumably read the article, missed some of these things.

  • Comma needed after the parenthetical Gillian Anderson in the lead.
  • Plot: For someone unfamiliar with the series, the "black oil" part is confusing since it's not really clear what that is. It's surely not regular oil, or it wouldn't have anything to do with alien life.
  • Should "the" be before Deep Throat? Reads oddly now.
  • "Scully meets with Fowley later, who claims...". To avoid having "who" modifying "later", move the latter word to before "meets".
  • In "who was the one who gave her the book and security card", "was the one who" can all be dropped as excessive and redundant wording.
  • Writing: Hyphen required in "Christ like", I imagine. There's even one used later in Themes.
  • Remove "a" from "later called the concept as a risk".
  • "A large portion of the episode was based on the ancient astronaut theory; a theory that proposes...". This really needs a change since the punctuation is off and there's a glaring redundancy. How about "was based on the ancient astronaut theory, which proposes...".
  • Casting and effects: "Finally, all the pieces were digitally adding together to create the final scene." "adding" → "added".
  • In the photo caption for Mimi Rogers, can we come up with something more formal than "meets her demise"?
  • Quote in Themes: "Jesus represents is the utmost human challenge". The grammar here is off. I know it's a quote, but surely this can be fixed. If "What" came before this in the source, include it; otherwise, find a way to get rid of "is".
  • Broadcast and reception: If you want to avoid complaints from Sandy, I'd highly recommend removing every "however" you see in this section (there are at least two).
  • At least one word missing from "He did, however, highly compliment the scene with The Smoking Man looking out onto the alien apocalypse and called 'pretty impressive TV effects accomplishment." Probably needs "it a" before the quote.
  • "Sarah Stegall awarded the episode a three our of five." Another typo in there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a copyedit, but I have also fixed all the issues that you found. Sorry about those!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here's the deal. The article received a copy-edit from Crisco 1492, here. He suggested several things, that I fixed as well as a few new additions, here. I honestly feel that this article is now truly up to par with what you guys were wanting, and I truly appreciate you digging in and helping me improve it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on copy-editing this more and coming back here to support, but I couldn't get my edit in due to an edit conflict. I saw some more questionable writing while I went through it; some of that has probably been fixed, but I'm uncomfortable striking my oppose until I can verify that everything is all right. Hopefully I can look at it again either later tonight or tomorrow, but I offer no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gotten to copy-edit further and, although I found some new issues that I needed to fix, I am satisfied enough to strike the oppose. I found a couple more things I'm not sure about, which I'd like to see resolved before I support.
  • A sentence in Plot now reads "containing a book about Native American beliefs, which describes...". I'm not sure, based on the previous wording, whether there was one book or more; you'd need to see the episode to know. Perhaps the nominator can check that I did this correctly?
  • The last sentence on the Shearman/Pearson review is going to need another citation, as the next reference doesn't appear to cover it. This must have been flipped around during prior copy-editing. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Perhaps this was supported by others a tad prematurely, but I believe it meets the requirements now after the work that has gone into it. The prose is much better than it was when I first looked at the article. I do implore the nominator and others in the X-Files project to seek external copy-editing before bringing future articles to FAC, so that the grammar issues this FAC has run into can be kept to a minimum in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry for the copyedit issues. We will certainly work on that!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, Gen. Quon; the article now more closely resembles the state an article should be in when it appears at FAC, ready for serious review. That there are four supports before the much-needed copyedit puts the delegates in a spot; how are they to consider that those supports engaged the criteria? On that basis, I suggest those Supports were premature, and additional review should be undertaken before promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I would like to note that the article was copy-edited before, but I guess it just wasn't thorough enough, and I apologize for prematurely nominating the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies are needed for a good faith nomination! You might want to talk with the Supporters, though, to help them realize that premature Supports paradoxically make it harder for your FAC to be promoted. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My support was based on more criteria than just prose; I might not be the best judge of FA-quality prose but my declaration can still be seen as an accurate assessment of the article's neutrality, comprehensiveness, depth of research—in short, every criterion at WP:WIAFA bar 1a. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates closing comment - I have decided to archive this nomination. The early supports have not been useful to deciding whether there is a consensus that all the criteria have been satisfied. But I will allow the article to be renominated earlier than the two-week rule allows. Graham Colm (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (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_Sixth_Extinction_II:_Amor_Fati/archive1&oldid=1136095214"