Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Awake episodes/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [1].

List of Awake episodes

[edit]

List of Awake episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TBrandley 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I, personally, think it now meets FL criteria. After a peer review, and a copy-edit from Wikipedia's wonderful editors, I now think it is ready. Thanks, TBrandley 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The description for "Turtles All the Way Down" seems quite jumbled. A nice copyedit would be good. Guy546(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • Comment: Prose is a bit choppy, an example: "It was well received by television critics, who praised it storylines" should be 'prasied its storylines'. I agree with Guy546 that this could use a bit of copyediting. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • Comment: I agree that the page is in need of some serious copy editing. How about starting with the word 'Michael', which is spelled Micheal at least five times on the page? Many of the episode descriptions are choppy and have ambiguous parts. I'm not about to list examples here so that you can just add a "done" check mark. Get another copy editor to go over the page with a fine-toothed comb before considering FL. Honestly, if you cannot notice that you spelled criteria wrong in your nomination above (creitia), you don't have the eye for it. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a little bit of copy-editing, I'll be willing to support this list. Will put the article on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Otherwise, good job. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending this fix: I still see "Michael" misspelled twice. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Paper Luigi (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Comments - These are suggestions from the automated peer reviewer:
    • "where the voice at the drive thru says that he can't go to Portland" - "can't" should be "cannot"
      •  Done
    • The Nielsen ratings header shouldn't be wikilinked.
      •  Done
    • The article links to a disambiguation page (Variety).
      •  Done

Paper Luigi T • C 22:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Additional comments from Logical Fuzz. Despite my previous suggestion that you find someone to copyedit the ep summaries, I can't see that there has been any real change/editing as of yet. I still think it needs a once-over by a good editor.
    • Lead - praised, praised, praise. Very repetitive. Find another word.
      •  Done
    • "Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" were particularly praised"....for what specifically?
      •  Done. It was for the main storylines.
    • "By late May, Awake had averaged 4.8 million viewers per episode and was 125th in Nielsen ratings." This is a series-end average, correct? The wording makes it sound more like episodes in late May were pulling in 4.8 million. How about: Awake averaged 4.8 million viewers per episode and ranked 125th in viewership for the 2011-12 television season.
    • In the ep summaries, when you first mention the main character for an episode, you refer to him in various ways: Michael, Michael Britten, Detective Michael Britten, Detective Britten. Other than in the first ep (when you are introducing the character), I think you need some consistency with this.
      •  Done
    • "Michael Britten deals with a case at his work with a homeless man Bernard Mackenzie and his death." Awkward. ...deals with a case of the death of a homeless man, Bernard Mackenzie.
      •  Done
    • "Michael's old retired partner Jim Mayhew (William Russ) is call in to help with the case,"
      • Tense: called in.
        •  Done
      • Old retired partner? Rather than his new retired partner? Get rid of old, it is unnecessary.
        •  Done
    • "The serial killer, Gemini contacts Britten at the end of the episode." Consistency with the commas: Gemini, contacts
      •  Done. Also, see below at Giant2008's comments.
    • "In an effort to calm down Gabriel Wyath (Billy Lush) -- a patient who has threatened to blow up a mental hospital -- Britten is compromised," replace the double hyphens with a dash
      •  Done. Also, see below at Giant2008's comments.
    • "Meanwhile, Rex introduces his girlfriend, Emma, to his dad and Bird shows concern over Britten's lack of focus due to his sleepless nights." needs a comma: to his dad, and
      •  Done
    • "drive thru" is hyphenated, drive-thru
      •  Done
    • Michael deals with a case with a football fan that was found on the ground dead, in his "red reality". Rearrange. In his "red reality", Michael deals with a case of a football fan found dead on the ground.
      •  Done
    • "He is unable to switch lives, and realizes that Ed Hawkins (Kevin Weisman), a cop in his department, was trying to kill him for his occupation at the police department, after seeing him as a hallucination."
      • This is awkward and ambiguous, reword: Who had this hallucination? Hawkins, or Michael?
        •  Done
      • Switch lives, or realities?
        •  Done. It is realities, which are lifes. But, because of the rest, are realities, I'll use that. Thanks for noticing that!
      • "for his occupation?" Sounds strange, no one talks (or writes) like that.
        •  Done. After watching "Two Birds". Ed killed him for a different reason, which is explanined in the "Two Birds" summary. I have removed.
      • department is repetitive.
        •  Done
    • "Hannah asks Michael to speak to Emma's father, Joaquin (Carlos LaCamara) to be more sympathetic about Emma's pregnancy."
      • Ambiguous, needs clarification/rewrite: Is Michael speaking to Joaquin so Michael seems more sympathetic, or does Joaquin need to be more sympathetic?
        •  Done
      • Another comma: father, Joaquin (Carlos LaCamara), to
        •  Done
    • Nielsen ratings table looks terrible. Either reduce the width or center the data.
      •  Done

That's what I found rather quickly, I am sure there is more. Like I said above, I still think it needs a once-over by a good editor. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments. I have fixed your, and the below issues. Thanks again. TBrandley 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "On May 11, 2012, the series was canceled and aired its final episode on May 24, 2012." Two things. First, the year doesn't need to be repeated here or in the previous sentence. It's obvious from the context that this all took place in 2012, so it shouldn't be restated over and over. Second, the series can't air itself; the network does there. With that in mind, shouldn't the sentence say "and NBC aired its final episode..."?
    •  Done
  • The "has had large fan support campaigns" bit may be a bit outdated, considering that the network decisions for next season may be over and done with by this point.
    •  Done
  • Alt text for the lead image would be nice.
    •  Done
  • Episode 1: The red and green realities aren't explained well at all here, as opposed to the lead, which I actually found to be pretty clear.
    •  Done
  • Episode 5: Comma needed after Gemini.
    •  Done
  • Episode 6: The instances two consecutive hyphens should be en dashes instead per the Manual of Style.
    •  Done
  • What makes reference 4 (She Wired) a reliable source?
    •  Done. Have removed. There are two others.
  • What makes ref 7 (The Futon Critic) reliable?
    •  Done. I still have replaced with Los Angeles Times and The Huffington Post. However, it is a good source, because, this is a press release from NBC, and is noted for its sources on other articles/lists. Like I said, I have replaced that source anyway. Thanks for your concern.
  • Both of the above refs, and ref 9, need en dashes to replace hyphens in their titles.
    •  Done

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments. I have addressed the issues. Hope you can support now! TBrandley 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still more comments from Logical Fuzz.

  • "Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" were particularly praised"....for what specifically?
    •  Done. It was for the main storylines.
      • That's not what I meant. Yes, it is the storylines, which are mentioned in the previous sentence. But what about the storylines was so good? What specifically was praised?
        • Yeah, now its done.
  • In the ep summaries, when you first mention the main character for an episode, you refer to him in various ways: Michael, Michael Britten, Detective Michael Britten, Detective Britten. Other than in the first ep (when you are introducing the character), I think you need some consistency with this.

Thanks for checking again! Have addressed new issues. TBrandley 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments minor as I've helped out in a previous review and a PR.
  • "Although it was inspired by the processes of dreaming, its script " say "Although it was inspired by the processes of dreaming, Awake's script "
    •  Done
  • "Two weeks later, Awake premiered in the United States on NBC on March 1, 2012" don't think you need both date references.
    •  Done
  • "it did have large fan support campaigns" -> "it had large..."
    •  Done
  • "have also met with praise among" -> "have also been praised..."
    •  Done
  • "AOL, Inc.." double period.
    •  Done
  • Same for the Time Inc. ref.
    •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you confirm where production codes are referenced?
Thanks for you comments. Think I have fixed most issues, expect for the ref. for production codes. Other article do not have refs. Thanks again ! TBrandley 03:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of The Simpsons episodes is a FL, and it cites the production codes under "Episodes- Key". List of Lost episodes is also a FL, and doesn't include the production codes at all. So my opinion is to reference them or remove them completely, because if you leave them there uncited; there is no way to confirm that they are not made up. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watch the episode, and you'll see that is very true. Thanks, TBrandley 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Seinfeld episodes also references production codes. Is there no way you can find something that references these codes? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could I use http://epguides.com. It is used for Seinfeld Season 9 on that article. TBrandley 04:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have listed at WP:HD to make sure! TBrandley 04:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the site and have questioned it in the past. Will be interested to see what the response to it is. Also, the one uncapped issue I have is still a problem, along with the grammar issue created by subsequent editing that has been noted. How six people can be supporting this with something as blatantly problematic as that prose error, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants, can you explain what the prose error is? I'll try to fix it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am not completely certain of what the issue is, I think I may have resolved it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the two issues. The phrase "run in" should be made into "run ins", which is what I originally asked for. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the issue. The "runs into" from before was correct, and is now incorrect. The issue I had was in "tries to make sense of his run in with these two very different versions of the same woman"; the "run in" should be "run ins" instead. It's disturbing that every time I bring this up, a change is made that makes things worse and doesn't fix the original issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Sorry for us getting it wrong. But, anyway, Thanks! TBrandley 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Giants, in the future, if you specifically know the issue, and it is unclear to other users what you are asking for, how about you just fix the issue. After all, this site is a community effort and the primary goal is to help out Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people like Giants taking an enormous amount of their own time to help you understand what needs to be fixed. Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not intend to come off as rude. I think it's typically appropriate for the reviewer to leave comments, and not fix the issues themselves, but since it appeared multiple users could not figure out the meaning, I think it would have been better for Giants to have fixed the minor issue. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world we could all understand every nuance of everything we say to each other so nothing subjective remains. That doesn't happen. Giants works hard here to help all nominations progress and I'm certain he would avoid ambiguity wherever possible in any comments he makes. He (and other reviewers) really want to help and that means helping nominators and other reviewers understand what we're looking for at FLC. This is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying; please understand that I did not intend to express rudeness with my comment. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We're all doing the best we can. Hopefully we can get this list promoted soon and encourage you and other editors to keep up the great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, are there anymore issues to be addressed? Thanks, TBrandley 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Lead: Regarding the last paragraph of the lead, where you are mentioning critics/commentators. It appears to me that you need additional sources in order to use the plural critics and commentators.
The sentence: Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" in particular have received positive reviews from commentators for their "heart wrenching" storylines.

  • This is cited to just one critical review. Has more than one critic called these heart-wrenching?
    •  Done
  • The review you are citing is talking only about "Say Hello", it does not mention "Pilot".
    •  Done. I have removed. It said it was the best since the pilot

The sentence: Various cast members have also been praised by critics, particularly Isaacs' performance as Michael Britten.

  • Again, the use of plural "critics", despite one source.
  • I don't see where in the given source the praise for "various cast members", just Isaacs.
    •  Done. Added two more ref., now with 3 in all.
      • I wouldn't call that done. Three refs, so what? Ref 15 gives no praise of any of the cast except Isaacs, and all Ref 16 says is "well acted". Not what I was hoping for. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done. IGN praises the main cast, and The Washington Post praised BD Wong and Cherry Jones.

Either more refs are needed, or the sentences need to be rewritten and in singular form {a critic, a commentator).--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those have been properly addressed. Thanks! TBrandley 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, see above.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Awake_episodes/archive2&oldid=1140259573"