Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deadalive/archive2

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 10:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Deadalive edit

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This episode died on the nomination table last time around, with only one comment. I'm renominating because I feel it is (and already was) ready. This is the fifteenth episode of eight season of The X-Files, and a big episode for the series; it features the real return of David Duchovny as Fox Mulder. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for the next big step. It is currently a GA as well as an A-Class article. I implemented much of what I learned from my previous FAN attempt. It has been copyedited, as well as peer-reviewed by three different editors, including Noleander, The Rambling Man, and Ruby 2010/2013. The article reads well, features illustrations (and the non-free images have proper licenses), and the references are properly formatted and of high quality. I feel that the article's prose, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed so I'd like to provide support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's... okay, but it could be improved. The Plot section is too condensed: it doesn't have an enjoyable flow and seems starchy. But the article improves from that point forward.

"...rogue FBI agent Alex Krycek (Nicholas Lea) activates nanobots ... causing the veins in Skinner's neck to bulge, making him stumble in pain...": what does this statement have to do with anything? It is not properly explained. (Was it just out of spite? Perhaps Krycek made use of the attack in order to debilitate Skinner prior to the encounter, so Krycek could then make good his escape? Do the nanobots have some other purpose besides inflicting pain?)
Krycek uses them as blackmail. By inflicting pain, he makes Skinner do what he wants. It's kind of hard to explain. Does it make sense now?
It's an improvement. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Further, if Krycek inflicted this pain, why does he then proceed to greet Skinner in the next sentence?~~
~~"...give birth to her baby for an unknown reason": for reasons he doesn't disclose? Or is he just nuts and doesn't know why he wants the pregnancy terminated?~~
~~"...the series hired Patrick...": this came across as odd because "the series" should be an inanimate object. Perhaps the show's executives hired Patrick?~~
~~There is some inconsistencies with the author names in the references section. Some are listed "first last" while others are "last, first".~~
~~"... Skinner attempting to remove Mulder's life support." Why? This appears to have nothing to do with Scully giving birth to her child.~~
He's trying to nullify the conflict that either entails saving Mulder and killing Scully's baby, or letting Scully's baby live and watching Mulder die. By euthanizing Mulder, he's trying to tell Krycek where to stick it. But I don't exactly know how to say that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the lead and noticed a discrepancy. It says, "the body of alien abductee Billy Miles's (Zachary Ansley) is exhumed", which indicates the corpse was removed from its grave. However, the Plot section says, "a fishing trawler finds the decomposing body of Billy Miles". Please could you fix this and also clarify (in the lead) why this resulted in the exhumation of Mulder's body? Thanks. Praemonitus(talk) 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. Thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think if you work on the plot section and fine tune the lead a little more, it'll satisfy 1a. Praemonitus (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have addressed the four main points you brought up (I believe), as well as given the plot section a bit of a copyedit. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for the update. I added a concern and left one that appears unresolved. Praemonitus (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Consider linking maternity leave? (as you already link life support, which seems similar). Other than that, after another read-through I think the article is worthy of FA status, and am happy to support. Ruby 2010/2013 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I fixed that now. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Writing: "and work around Duchovny' absence". His name is missing an s after the apostrophe.~~
~~"Despite the fact that show was filmed in California and under 'huge financial pressure'". Does "the" belong before "show"?~~
~~"life support" doesn't have the hyphen that it did in the plot summary.~~
~~Filming and effects: Since there's a nanobot link in the plot summary I'm not sure we need a second one here.~~
~~Reviews: "Likewise George Avalos and Michael Liedtke of the Contra Costa Times praising the on-screen return of characters such as Mulder and Krycek." "praising" → "praised".~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 02:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I noticed a couple of formatting issues in the references as well, but went and fixed them for you. With the issues I raised resolved, I see no reason not to support. There are quite a few primary sources to DVD commentary, but they are for production information and I'm not put off by their use. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, PD-old-100, fair-use). Sources and authors provided. Fixed tags for File:Noel-coypel-the-resurrection-of-christ-1700.jpg. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I can't spot anything outstanding that would hold this from being a FA. Miyagawa (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor's Comments

Prose looks great, but I think the references need to be checked out.
Inconsistency in references 1, 3, 9, 45, 46. First three in particular causing trouble for me; all three link to Fox Broadcasting Corporation but all use different names in the reference. Please make them all Fox Broadcasting Corporation or something that consolidates the three. If the last two sources are actually a different source, they are fine as is.
Consolidated. The last two are a different thing, though, so I kept them.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ref 31, Cinefantastique should be spelled out; it's not a common resource.Same with 51.
Well, Cinefantastique was officially rebranded CFQ when the review was published. The page just links to Cinefantastique, which was what it was called for quite sometime. I was told to change it to CFQ in a peer-review because that's the name of the publication when the article was released.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ref 41, it might be helpful to spell out BtoB Magazine.
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes reference 50 (Zalben) a reliable source?
I'm not sure what would be wrong about it. It's a notable TV review website, owned by a notable publisher [2] that has its own staff. UGO also has a hired panel of writers. Granted, the site has a humorous bent, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make it unreliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are all these commentators who wrote books just fans? Or are they all linked to the show's production/direction?
I believe they are what you'd call fans. I don't think they're involved with the show at all. Many have written other review of shows (like Shearman and Pearson).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - pending resolution of my comments. ceranthor 22:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Seem to all be addressed. Not overly satisfied with fan sources but I'm not really sure what the standard is for articles of this sort. Besides I'm sure the delegates will consider it before any closure. ceranthor 01:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you meant. Just to clarify, they're not random fans, they are professional reviewers. I thought you were asking if the had a bias if they were connected with the show. They've all been independently published, and have written on other topics. Anyways, their reviews were accepted in my FA nominations for "Triangle" and "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I had requested a formal source review for this a while back but no-one had time, nothing problematic stands out on my inspection so we'll wrap this one up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.