Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Home (The X-Files)/archive3

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 10:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Home (The X-Files) edit

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC), Bruce Campbell 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third time is the charm! This is an extremely infamous episode of The X-Files, noted for its extreme violence and horror. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the early part of 2012, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. Bruce Campbell submitted it for FA consideration, but at the time, it was not considered. Since then, it has undergone extensive editing and copy-editing, courtesy of Bruce Campbell, myself, Sarastro1, and JudyCS. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. This article was just nominated a few weeks ago, but the discussion closed due to lack of comments. I'm hoping this time, we can get some more comments! As a note, I am co-nominating this in Bruce Campbell's name. She contributed the most to this article, but isn't very active anymore.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Glimmer721 ^talk 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" Despite this, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter went too far." Perhaps clarify what "too far" means: "that the violent subject matter was excessive" or "not warranted" or something

"They took inspiration from" → "They were inspired by"
"small town" is mentioned in the lead: link it to Home, Pennsylvania?
"Mulder and Scully investigate their now-abandoned residence..." "their" seems to be referring to Mulder and Scully, not the Peacocks
"In retaliation, the brothers break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night, bludgeoning him and his wife to death with baseball bats." Should "him" be "he"?
I think Morgan and Wong maybe should be linked again in "Background" - they're linked in the lead and the infobox, but they haven't been linked in the actual body of the article yet
" Morgan decided to use this incident for the basis of the screenplay, though Wong suggested that they change the son into a mother.[11][20] It took a long time for the concept to finally be featured in one of his episodes." The first sentence suggests that the incident was specifically picked out for "Home", whereas the second suggests he had been wanting to use it for a long time. They don't go together very well.
"Elements first appeared in the episode "Humbug", written by Morgan's brother Darin Morgan, which featured a cast of circus sideshow performers and incorporated several themes that had an influence on "Home," including the use of a "benign soul trapped in the body of a monster".[5][23]" Same problem as above, but also I'm not sure repeating "Morgan" is necessary. "Morgan's brother Darin" with the link should work fine.
Link British Columbia, and perhaps add "Canada" after
"Surrey, B.C." first of all adds an extra period to the end of the sentence, but second of all actually has an article
"... showcasing the conflict between classic American values, and more modern culture." Comma not needed
"In 1997, when the channel FX ran an all-day marathon of the most popular X-Files episodes, the "Home" episode was the number one choice.[14]" The "Home" episode? Why not just "Home"?
"A writer from DVD Journal commented that this was because it "was initially buried by the network after its first airing".[52]" I'm not sure this is all necessary; the previous sentence sort of suggested it. Perhaps "In 1997, when the channel FX ran an all-day marathon of the most popular X-Files episodes, "Home" was the number one choice,[14] likely due to its lack of reruns.[52]"
"Author Dean A. Kowalskin, in The Philosophy of The X-File" isn't it "The Philosophy of The X-Files"?
2 consecutive sentences in "later reception" use "listed it"
"In 2008, Starpulse gave the installment an honorable mention as one of the 10 best X-Files installments.[61]" Repetition of "installment"
The caption says that William B. Davis is a "series regular" - but is that quite true? His character is recurring...

No major comments. The article is for the most part FA-worthy. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed all the issues, save for the last. I think "series regular" is fair, considering he was credited as "also starring" whenever he appeared (which is different from how guest stars are credited, I believe).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I just wasn't sure how technical the term was. You have my support. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few issues that have been introduced since the last FAC:

~~Plot: "bludgeoning he and his wife to death with baseball bats." I thought the original "his" where "he" was was correct, but maybe that's just me.~~
Completely reworded this to fix it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Writing: "Despite this, it took awhile time for the concept to finally come together into a working episode." Seems like either "awhile" or "time" must go.~~
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~The bit explaining who Keith Booker is has been removed. Not sure whether or not this was intentional.~~Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the error here is. He's described as "M. Keith Booker, in Blue-Collar Pop Culture..."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The full Booker reference must have been moved up. Sorry about that. Anyway, the article now appears to meet the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (This is the only thing that I've looked at.) The MoS states "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." There are 16 examples of ," and some of them are from titles, so those at least should be ", EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected these instances. Thank you for the catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN10: formatting
I believe I have fixed it, correct?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN18: italicization is backwards and AP is agency not author
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, look at treatment of author names - in a couple of cases you've got first and/or middle names as last names, and you're inconsistent in how names are presented
Whoops! Dumb mistake! Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN52: author is incorrect, missing italics on publication title
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN53: why the doubling?
Another dumb mistake.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
I think I've fixed some issues with this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers
I believe I have fixed the issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check alphabetization of References
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, what makes Great Graves a high-quality reliable source? Same with Return to Eden and Lulu. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "Great Graves", since it could be backed up with a better source. As for "Return to Eden", it is the autobiography of an actor featured in this episode Tucker Smallwood, and the use of the reference seems to satisfy the conditions for its inclusion according to WP:SELFPUB.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Ruby2010

Traveling to the small town of Home, Pennsylvania isolated from the rest of the world, the pair meet a family of deformed farmers named the Peacocks who have not left their house in a decade. -- I think this sentence could be tighter. How about Traveling to the small isolated town of Home, Pennsylvania, the pair meet..."?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sandlot ball game could use a relevant wikilink
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So was anything meaningful changed in the script after it was sent to Vancouver? You kind of leave this hanging.
Reworded. I don't think anything was changed, they were just disgusted by it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Mrs. Peacock functions as a being whose sons have "reduce[ed] her to all female functions". ... Hmmm something doesn't quite work here; suggest removing the "her" part of the quote
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You imply that "Home" had a "lack of reruns". I was a bit confused by this so I read the linked citation, which says the episode was "initially buried by the network after its first airing on October 11, 1996." This doesn't quite back up the "lack of reruns". Suggest changing to something closer to the source
I removed it, since technically it was kind of OR.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Phil Farrand consider it the worst episode up to that point? Also, you should combine those two Farrand (1997) citations. Ruby 2010/2013 14:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments from this and the last FAC have been resolved , so I'm happy to support this one. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, ~~leaning support~~: I'm on a bit of an X-Files run at the moment! I copy-edited and review this article some time ago, and it is much improved since then. There are very few problems with the prose or content, and I have copy-edited a little more to trim redundancy where necessary. An impressive piece of work by all concerned. I will happily switch to full support once these final points are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"mused that Morgan and Wong were unfamiliar with the direction that the series had taken during its third season.": Could we state what direction that was? Otherwise it's a bit of a tease.
"Elements of the script were mirrored in the sixth season episode "Terms of Endearment", which also featured child-murdering antagonists.": This seems tacked on at the end of the writing section, and doesn't really fit with what is around it, unless I'm missing something.
"Because the town was a "mix of new and old" buildings, careful reverse angles were employed to preserve the "small-town American illusion".": Why the quotation marks for relatively common phrases? Maybe better rephrased as "Because the buildings of the town comprised both old and new styles..." and "...the impression of "small-town America". (And what is a reverse angle?)
"The filming of "Home" was an unpleasant experience for Tucker Smallwood": Does he say so? I'm a little uncomfortable with the editorial voice here. What about something like "Tucker Smallwood remembered the filming of Home as an unpleasant experience"?
"Upon its first broadcast, "Home" received moderately positive reviews...": Hmmm. POV? Why not "several positive"?
""Home" has often been cited as one of the best of the series.": The best what?
As I said some time ago, I think we overdo the reviews, but it is not a problem for me if you want to keep them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with a copy-editing disclaimer): Changes look good. I do wonder if "deliberately wanted to go back to the stylistic origins of the series" is still a bit of a tease. It would be nice to know how the series style had changed since then so that we can see why the episode was such a departure. But this does not affect my support if you want to leave it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean by "tease". The problem is, I don't have the source anymore, since BruceCampbell added that bit, so I didn't want to change or add anything since I wouldn't know what I'm doing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose - no prose-clangers jump out at me....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ until the prose is sorted out. I shouldn't be finding things like "Mulder and Scully investigate the their now-abandoned residence ..." after three weeks at FAC. And here are examples of some other stuff:

"In retaliation, they break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night to murder him and his wife." That's their motivation, but did they actually murder the sheriff and his wife? A reference to "the Taylor murders" suggests that they did, but they could be different Taylors as things stand.

"I'm not at all fond of "intended for" as in "The duo intended for their first episode back to be as ambitious and shocking as possible".

"... and was surprised when he first received the screenplay". When did he receive it for the second time?

"During the sheriff's death scene Smallwood insisted on performing his own stunts, but he quickly changed his mind after hitting his head on the ground while performing a dive." That repeated "performing ... performing" is rather awkward.

"After omitting the controversial audio and applying some careful editing, the censors eventually approved the episode." What that's saying is that it was the censors who did the work, which seems rather unlikely.

"However, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter was excessive." Shouldn't be starting a sentence with "however".

Eric Corbett 22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issues that you have pointed out. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While looking through and doing some more copy-editing, I noticed that "Heim (2008)" is not in the reference list but is used as a reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! My mistake. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article, would make a good contribution to our FA collection. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have I missed the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has done it yet.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images outside the one in the infobox are legitimately freely licensed or PD, and all required information is present. The infobox image is a non-free screenshot. It also has all required information present and has a rationale, but it is not clear to me whether the image's use fulfills all of our non-free content criteria. Screenshots are often listed for deletion at FFD, and are usually only kept if the contents of the image are mentioned in sourced commentary in the article body. The claim is considerably stronger if the contents are mentioned outside the "plot" section, since those sections are only loosely sourced. In this case, it would be easy for the "Initial ratings and reception" section to briefly mention that a scene shows a family burying a child alive—there are places where this would fit naturally—and doing so would strengthen the non-free use claim immeasurably. (Without that, the contents of the scene are not mentioned in clearly-sourced commentary, and the use could be held to violate our WP:NFCC.) – Quadell ^(talk) 03:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it and added a blurb in the "Initial ratings and reception" section. How's it look now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 07:02, 7 December 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) 15:15, 7 December 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.