Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over There (Fringe)/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 SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [1].

Over There (Fringe)[edit]

Over There (Fringe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A parallel universe? Doppelgangers? KFC? The Brooklyn Dodgers? What show could possibly possess all four of these odd components? You will just have to read the article to find out more! I am nominating this for featured article status because it painstakingly details the large amount of work (production, reception etc) that went into the highly entertaining (and critically acclaimed) season two finale of the sci-fi series Fringe. The article lays the groundwork for the increased look into the Other Side (read the article to find out precisely what that means), and sets up the plotline for the following season. It has achieved GA status and has recently undergone a peer review and a copy edit; I now feel the article fulfills FA's stringent requirements. Thanks to all for looking it over. Here's hoping we have our first Fringe FA. Ruby2010 comment! 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed. Comment—Great series! I've enjoyed watching many of the episodes and I thought the "Over There" finale was excellent. After reading the first part of the article, I have some comments:

  • The text freely mixes in dubbed names for characters in the alternate universe without quite explaining them. For example, at the first mention of "Walternate", the text should clarify that this is a dubbed name for the Walter Bishop in the alternate universe. (I think it was the original Walter Bishop that invented this portmanteau.)
  • I was wary about adding too much prose in the lead, particularly about a character that will be described later in the article. Consequently, to help readers I wikilinked Walternate in the lead. Do you still think I should try to describe the character further? I'm just trying to keep it clutter-free Ruby2010 comment! 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first half of the second paragraph of the lead contains information that isn't covered in the body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the body. In this regard:
  • Some of the Plot section contains information that may be confusing to the uninitiated. I think the section could use a "the story thus far" (prelude) paragraph or two to set the stage for the reader and explain the world-specific terminology. For example: who are "The Observers", what is Massive Dynamic and the Fringe Division, what is meant by "there abilities" ("their abilities")?
  • Concerning some background to help non-viewers, I have debated whether I should add something. It came up in the peer review, and one reviewer thought it wasn't really needed. The brief sentence in the lead you mentioned was meant to provide the needed background to understand the series (hence the citations). I've tried to compare this article to other confusing episode topics, such as Lost (Meet Kevin Johnson, Confirmed Dead etc). Confirmed Dead for instance mentions the Others without explaining who they are (the wikilink provided does that instead). Thoughts? Ruby2010 comment! 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, just about every article I've brought before the FAC has been critiqued for the use of jargon, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language. It's odd that this same criteria doesn't apply to non-technical articles. I suppose you could inform the readers about the Fringe (season 2) article so that they can read about what happened before.
  • Yesterday I added that Massive Dynamic is a "biotechnology corporation" and wikilinked it to help readers. The Observer is wikilinked (and I don't think explaining more would help readers that much - they can always follow the link to discover more). I also wikilinked Fringe Division to help readers. I think that is enough for comprehension. There isn't much in the season 2 article, the wikilinks I added go to the main Fringe series article. Does that work? Thanks for your input, Ruby2010 comment! 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a few more minor modifications and I think it works for me now. Thanks.
  • The text mixes unspaced em-dashes and spaced en-dashes. Per the MoS, please be consistent and use one or the other.
  • The following doesn't quite make sense, perhaps because of ambiguity: ...wanted "Over There" to be a "beautiful culmination of everything" whilst traveling to the Other Side.
  • "Torv had to learn blocking and shooting carefully..." This should clarify whether this is camera shooting or weapon shooting.
  • In general, some of the paragraphs seem quite lengthy. This can lead to tedium on the part of the reader, so you may want to consider adding judicious paragraph breaks. Particular examples are the paragraphs that begin: "Pinkner and Wyman brought back the...", "On April 5, 2010, Entertainment Weekly reported...", "A number of popular culture..." and "Like part one the second part premiered..."
  • Fixed (although the "Pinkner and Wyman brought back the..." paragraph can't really be divided very well). Ruby2010 comment! 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder seems fine. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jenks24:

  • In the Part two section, the sentence "Peter tells Walter he'll never understand him but, as Walter traveled into another universe twice to save him–which counts for something, Peter forgives him." needs to have an em dash, not an en dash, between him and which and the MoS is against contractions (see WP:CONTRACTION), so he'll --> he will.
  • In the writing and filming section, three of the five paragraphs start with "Over There". Anyway you could change this up a little?
  • Also in that section, "For the fight scene that followed Torv had to learn blocking and shooting carefully as well as to be mindful of her movements and the camera's location – though she was aided by stunt doubles" should be an em dash, as you've said that's what you're going with
  • Same again for "They wrote the cliffhanger not knowing if the series had been renewed – they would have had to make an "eleventh-hour redraft" had the show been canceled by Fox."
  • In the casting section, "Noble described his doppelgänger — nicknamed "Walternate" by Walter[50] — as "[physically] the same man and the same actor".", em dashes shouldn't be spaced.
  • In the reviews section, I assume "A-" is an A followed by a minus symbol, in which case I guess it should be like this A− which will show as A−.
  • At one point in the article you have called it the LA Times, but at another point called the newspaper the Los Angeles Times. See MOS:CONSISTENCY.
  • See WP:OVERLINK. Sometimes you have two wikilinks to the same article in one section.
  • In the refs section, you have left the majority of newspapers unlinked, but decided to link in refs 94 and 95. Better to be consistent, either link them all, or don't link any.
  • They were unlinked in the recent copy edit. They should all be formatted correctly now (I added links to all of them). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • No need to include "Canada" for Vancouver Sun references
  • Citations to audio/video sources should have time references
  • Looking at the parameters at Template:Cite video, I'm not sure what you mean by time references. The videos are part of the DVD's special features. Ruby2010 comment! 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'll look up the times when I get a chance (am traveling currently; won't be home til the 23rd). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 22:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first site is from DC Comics, which seems extremely reliable considering the article is on comic books they designed. I removed the Geekosystem refs, but don't really see a problem with Airlock Alpha's reliability. Per RS, "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users". Airlock Alpha's editorial staff wrote/oversaw the two articles I used from their site. Ruby2010 comment! 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37: formatting
  • Fox is a publisher, not an author
  • Don't use all-caps, even if the source does
  • Publications should all be italicized
  • All the publications should be italicized? I thought it was just newspaper and magazine sources (and not websites like Digital Spy). Ruby2010 comment! 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not as defined for websites - I've seen either done, so as long as you're consistent I wouldn't worry about it. But is "The Hollywood Reporter", for example, a print source or a website?
  • Your "subscription required" links go to the University of St. Thomas proxy instead of directly to the newspaper's or database's login page
  • I can't find direct links to the Vancouver Sun articles (I've search the Sun's website archives but can't seem to find them). I can always just remove the URLs if you want. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did that you would need to add page numbers - is that possible? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 82: publisher?
  • Ref 101: group listed as author is actually publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now – Read through most of the article and am not that happy with parts of it. Some of the comments below are minor, but there are also several grammar glitches that shouldn't be in an article at this stage. I recommend getting a copy-edit from a steady hand; I have examples of issues below, but one editor can't catch everything (and FAC isn't a great place for that anyway).

  • "FBI agent Olivia Dunham and Walter lead a team of former Cortexiphan test subjects there in order to retrieve him". The "in order" is a little wordiness that can easily be removed, tightening the sentence without changing any meaning.
  • "'Over There' were the longest episodes depicting the parellel universe to date." First, I'm not sure this should be in plural format considering the introduction of the article had singular ("is"). Second, I'm confused by the sentence itself. Were these episodes actually longer than others, or is that just the amount of time in that world? The body implies the latter, but this sentence isn't clear enough to indicate that.
  • "with many in particular praising the second episode's cliffhanger." Not a major point, but I've never been a fan of the "with ... -ing" type of sentence, and many other prose reviewers aren't either. How about "and many in particular praised..."?
  • Part two: "considering him a selfish war profiteer while he was locked away for 17 years and is still broken inside." Feels like something is missing from this sentence; can't figure out whether it's a word or some punctuation, or worse.
  • Writing and filming: "and wanted the end of the season to be a 'beautiful culmination of everything' whilst traveling to the Other Side." Again not a big deal, but "whilst" is just a wordier version of "while", which is really the preferred way to write it for an FA. More concerned with these next several things from the same section.
  • "The result was that DC specially designing ten alternate covers of some of their most iconic editions...". "designing" → "designed"?
  • "'but [Fauxlivia] just wants to win." and also that...". There's a period, but the sentence isn't ended. Not appealing to read through.
  • I added a semicolon; let me know if you think its needs something else Ruby2010 comment! 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it needs an extra quotation mark either before or after the semi-colon, depending on whether the source places punctuation before or after the end of a sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added quotation mark (in source punctuation appeared before the end of quotation). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 20:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the writers had not yet chosen what images they wanted displayed and opting instead to add them later." Should "opting" be "opted"?
  • "in order to allow Peter and Walter return to the prime universe". There's that "in order" again, but a "to" is also missing after the names; alternatively you could say "Peter and Walter's return".
  • Casting: TV Guide should be italicized as a printed publication.
  • Cultural references: Don't see why "Civil" is capitalized in the last sentence of the section's first paragraph.
  • KFC was just linked a couple of sections ago. Another link only adds blue and isn't that useful to the readers. You could say the same for DC Comics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to add new wikilinks for certain words in each section, but can see where that might be a bit unnecessary. I removed them. You can view the fixes above here. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck the oppose since most of the issues were fully addressed; still think the article could stand to be copy-edited, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I meant to offer my full support, I would have said so. Basically, what I'm saying is that my specific concerns from reading part of the article have been addressed (hence why I'm not opposing anymore), but I would be more comfortable if more copy-editing was done. I didn't read the Reception section, and there may still be places that can be improved in what I did look at. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies if I seemed pushy (this is my first real FA nom, and I wasn't quite sure how to prompt a support/oppose vote). As I'm sure you read, the article already received a copy edit on May 2. I'm reluctant to ask for another so soon unless others feel it really necessary. Again, thanks for taking the time to look the article over and striking your oppose. Much appreciated, Ruby2010 comment! 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having read through the article and FA criteria (this is my first review of an FAC) I am satisfied it meets the criteria. -- Matthew RD 23:39, 25 May 2011 (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/Over_There_(Fringe)/archive1&oldid=1145818698"