Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fresh Blood (Supernatural)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 03:06, 16 June 2010 [1].

Fresh Blood (Supernatural) edit

Fresh Blood (Supernatural) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ωphois 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards after being copyedited by multiple editors. Ωphois 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref 7: "Bad Day at Black Rock" What is this referring to? Book, magazine, TV episode etc?
    • Fixed. Is ref for an episode. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8: Why not format as "Knight, p. 14"?
    • All the previous FA's for Supernatural have been formatted the current way. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are missing my point. Let me put it another way: why is this formatted differently from 4, 5, 6 and 8? Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. My apologies. That is referencing the season 1 guide. The others are shortened versions of the season 3 guide that is fully referenced in the General section of the sources. Ωphois 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: more details needed. See WP:CITET ("cite video") for guidance. You don't have to use the template format, but it helps you see what is required.
    • I've added a couple more things to it. Ωphois 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: Why is this reliable? (http://www.ifmagazine.com/review.asp?article=2175)
    • New York Times suggests it as a link here. It is also owned by Electric Entertainment. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The NYT doesn't suggest it as a link, it reports it – along with Wikipedia which would not be accepted as a reliable source. I will leave it to other editors to judge the reliability of this one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed it from the article. Ωphois 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: Why is this reliable? (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/18/supernatural-ratings-2007-2008/1814) Isn't it possible to get the figures directly from Neilsen?
  • Ref 14: Why is this reliable? (http://www.tvguide.com/episode-recaps/supernatural/fresh-blood-7474.aspx)
    • It's a review by TV Guide. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: Why is this reliable? (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/11/16/supernatural-fresh-blood/)
    • TV Squad is owned by AOL. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: Why is this reliable? (http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/4441)
    • It's a review from a site owned by Quantum Global Media Inc. Ωphois 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (This is now ref 18): Why does ownership by Quantum Global Media Inc. indicate reliability? Despite its name, this does not appear to be a large-scale organisation. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted below by AnmaFinotera, "It is run by several journalists and has a long history in the business for news reporting (operated under another name before said name was sold to NBC), and it carefully screens writers." Ωphois 21:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The information provided, which broadly summarises the site's "about us" section, doesn't actually prove reliabity, and AnmaFinotera's remarks below scarcely represent an endorsement. However, I will leave this issue for other editors to comment on/judge. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17: Chicago Tribune should be italicised.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the resulting brotherly scene at the episode's end." - Can we be more specific? Was it a reconciliation or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the last paragraph of the Plot section. Basically Dean teaches Sam how to repair their car since he will soon die. Ωphois 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a better way to put it.[2]
Changed to "reconciliation". Ωphois 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"thorn in the Winchesters' sides" - Sounds funny with "Winchesters" in the middle of the old saying.
Never mind on that one. Seems to be standard usage per Google news.
"who has already taken two victims" - Maybe "previously" instead of "already"?
Done. Ωphois 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Dixon had spiked her drink with his own blood at a club, transforming her. Dixon had taken her back to his home, but she had escaped to feed." Few too many "had"s in a short span.
Done. Ωphois 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sam calls him out on it. " - Too informal.
Changed to "Dean claims that he is not scared of his impending death, but Sam challenges this." Ωphois 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"was now a monster and follows his instincts instead of logic" - Should it be "should follow his instincts"? Not sure about the tense.
Done. Ωphois 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and envisioned him as a long-time friend of Gordon who could be counted on." - The "counted on" part sounds funny.
Changed to "who could be depended upon". Ωphois 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Looking really good, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Some of WP's best work. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in response to some of the notes above, who owns something does not make it reliable. I also question what makes TV Squad reliable. There is no information at all on who any of the authors are. Is it a user edited site? How, exactly, does it meet WP:RS? Same for the TV Guide blogs. Who are the editors? Are they TV Guide reporters or is it like About.com? Airlock Alpha is more borderline. It is run by several journalists and has a long history in the business for news reporting (operated under another name before said name was sold to NBC), and it carefully screens writers. It seems to meet WP:RS, barely. My major concern is how is this a notable episode. Even if we accept all three as reliable, they also all appear to be summarizing every episode of the series, and many others, with an intermix of opinion thrown in (i.e. typical type blog posts), which does not lend itself to notability (anymore than a film directory that lists every film with a plot summary makes all the films notable. That New York Times "suggests" iF as a link, does not make iF reliable, and I see nothing on the site or elsewhere that shows that it meets WP:RS. While the Chicago Tribune article is reliable, the author is covering the entire season, not just a single episode and her comments on this would not really be what I'd call "significant coverage" when taken alone. I'd have a very hard time supporting this for featured article candidacy until some seriously demonstrable notability can be shown, not just some borderline instances and less than reliable sources.
For other aspects of the the plot is excessively long. The single sentence quote being called out is unnecessary and does not comply with the basic Manual of Style (call outs should be used only for longer quotes). The TV Guide review is given an entire paragraph of summary, while the others less so, seems a bit unbalanced to me when, again if we consider them reliable, the three noted above gave the episode the same amount of space. The prose is not what I'd call "brilliant" nor "engaging". Random example, from the start of the effects section "Both special and visual effects were utilized to accomplish Gordon's death sequence." - stating the beyond obvious since its unlikely they really killed him. Almost all of the sources from this article are primary sources, and I can't help but wonder why it can't be part of that article. It doesn't seem like much of the information is very unique to this specific episode. For side notes: I find it curious that the season article does not link to this episode in the table and why is the talk page missing the TV project banner? (note, Ophois please reply below rather than mixing your reply with my remarks as you did above)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about with primary sources? There is only one item that can be considered a primary source. Everything else is print or websites...
Anyways, I'm willing to remove TV Squad and IFMagazine, but the TV Guide is done by columnist/blogger Tina Charles, who is also supervising producer for TV Guide Network and has written under the TV Guide News pseudonym. The reason her section is so long is because her review was the longest. I believe that the reason the Chicago Tribune article is a grouping is because Ryan did not review the series until the fourth season.
I will try and trim the plot down today. As for your comment that "It doesn't seem like much of the information is very unique to this specific episode", I have no idea what you are talking about. There are one or two general sentences that mention previous vampire or Gordon episodes, but overall it pertains to this episode...
As for notability, it is the last episode to feature recurring character Gordon, and has a cameo by McNab (both of which are mentioned in the reception area). As noted before, all but one source is also a secondary one. Ωphois 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that it is not linked with some other Supernatural articles is simply because I forgot to add it. Anyways, thanks for your input. Ωphois 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book, interviews, magazine from the series, etc are primary sources. It doesn't matter how they are published. They are not independent of the subject. For unique information, I meant the development details, which seem standard type stuff and mostly unnotable. And being the "last episode to feature Gordon", who seems to be a fairly minor secondary character that only appeared in four episodes anyway, does not in anyway at all make the episode notable. Notability is shown by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, which this does not seem to have. It's relevance to the series fans or storyline does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you are saying. However, any secondary source on a topic like this would be based on primary sources. I don't see the difference between an interview and someone summarizing an interview. Ωphois 19:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is done by Nicholas Knight for Titan Books. It is not done by the show. The same can be said for the magazine. It may have interviews with people from the show, but it is written by other writers. Ωphois 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also regarding your comment that it is "beyond obvious" that they used both visual and special effects... that is not true. They could have easily done the sequence solely with visual effects or solely with special effects. It is not obvious that both were used. Ωphois 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book and magazine are fan vehicles for the show. They are not third-party nor independent of the topic nor are they academic examinations of the topic. Visual effects are a type of special effect. So it isn't that both were used, it is that two types of techniques were used, one being visual, the other being? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Titan makes companions and magazines for numerous shows, such as Lost, Heroes, Smallville, and Stargate. It is not made solely for the series or network, is not associated with the production team of the show, and is therefore independent.
And visual effects are not a type of special effect. Visual effects are done with computer imagery, such as digitally adding in blood or removing something from the frame. Special effects are what is done during filming, such as prosthetics or fake blood. Ωphois 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a fanbook and alone is not enough to make the episode notable to me, particularly as it is not about the episode itself, but the series as a whole. Same thing to me on the effects, but the article on special effects seems to indicate that they are now considered different. I still do not feel the prose is very engaging however, nor do I feel that is a particularly good sentence as I suspect most readers will have the same "well no duh" type reaction. Perhaps something like "To lend a strong air of realism to Gordon's death scene, the scene was created by combing various special effects during filming with post-production visual effects." or something similar which better clarifies they are different and when they happened. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine does not cover every aspect of the series, though. McNab was interviewed specifically for her role in the episode. And I added in your suggestion, but tweaked it a little bit. :) Ωphois 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to me, the episode is notable because of all the information that is available for it in the sources I used. The magazines and companions usually only give a few tidbits on the episodes. Ωphois 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two articles that BuddyTV covers on the episode. The first discusses Ivan Hayden talking about the effects of Gordon's death, and the second is one of the columnists discussing the fallout of the episode's events. Ωphois 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes that site anymore reliable? It bills itself as a fansite for fans, and again gives no real info on who any of these columnists are. Is there editorial control? I see no signs that the site meets WP:RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at the information and sources at its wiki page. As noted on its about page, it has been mentioned by numerous big-name sites/newspapers, and one of its writers is quoted by USA Today here. As noted here, the website does have editors and oversight. Ωphois 05:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking of BuddyTV, I also came across an article reporting McNab's role for the episode. Ωphois 06:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also found an article on The San Diego Union-Tribune here that names the episode as the #6 best television episode (of all shows, not specifically Supernatural) of the 2007-2008 television season. The writer of the article is a staff writer. Ωphois 05:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Rolling Stone briefly mentions Sterling K. Brown's role as Gordon in the third season (which "Fresh Blood" takes place in) here. Ωphois 06:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...if these much higher quality sources have mentioned this episode, why was it not in the article before now? This would seem to be a failing of criteria 1c: "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". It seems like much of this should have been found way before this FAC and the episode's notability came into question. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of these sources don't have information that can really contribute to the article, or were extremely hard to find (the Rolling Stone one doesn't mention the character or episode, and had to be located through Web Archive). To find the Seattle Post one, I had to specifically search their website. I will add the #6 episode one to the reception section, but the others just talk the episode or an aspect without giving any good information.
For example, the Rolling Stone one just mentions the actor coming back due to popularity. This is his second appearance in the season, so I don't find it relevant for this episode. The BuddyTV about Gordon's death is very general, and I have much more specific details from another source. The BuddyTV article on McNab mentions that she will appear, but doesn't offer other details.
If you want, I can add in another section, referencing the fallout article, and discuss Sam's possible descent into darkness. Ωphois 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph about that in the reception area. Ωphois 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also went through the article and made some adjustments in an attempt to be more concise and engaging. Ωphois 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why TV Squad is reliable (or not), is that it's part of the "blog" (not really blogs) network along with Engadget and a bunch of others, where the writers are paid, and there are editors in control. I don't think the writers are paid much, and I don't think the editors edit much. The NY Times it ain't, but I think it at least meats the bare minimum for RSs, and since it isn't controversial BLP info, I think it's OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don’t TV actors talk a load of bollocks nonsense about their “craft”? (no action required)
  • Because many of her recent roles tended to die, McNab was delighted by Lucy's offscreen death — characters rather than roles
Done. Ωphois 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this been shown outside the US, eg Canada, the UK, Japan? If so viewing figures from outside the US could be included, and reviews from non-US sources could also be included. This would broaden the perspective and also help to address the RS issue, since any reviews might be carried in national newspapers, RS for this sort of thing by definition.
It has, but unfortunately the series did not become visible to critics and the media until the fourth season, so there isn't really any international reviews or anything like that that I have been able to find. However, I feel that the extra sources that I provided above prove its notability. Ωphois 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In infobox, how can actors not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles be “guest stars”? “Man” and “woman at bar” don’t sound like starring roles.
Removed. Ωphois 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sorry for the delay, I've been kind of busy in real life but I've been following the progress here. I adjusted a couple of things. One thing that does come to mind that I didn't touch was all of the "praise" and "lauded" type of qualifiers in the reception area. For me, I think we need to be as objective as possible, and I think that means not including such personal qualifiers. I mean, the reviews should probably speak for themselves. If a critic liked the episod then it will probably be reflected in the words. That's just me and wanting to keep everything WP:NPOV. On a personal note, I didn't read the plot section because this is a series I plan to watch and I don't want to ruin anything for myself - so I trust that it has been address fully by the above editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Did a good lookover of the article, and overall I found it to be solid enough for FA-status—clear prose, comprehensible information, and a brilliant reception section. No fairuse images to comment on; just one free-use pic that is verified at commons. Nothing else to say. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 17:32, 15 June 2010 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fresh_Blood_(Supernatural)/archive1&oldid=1138461155"