Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:39, 25 August 2010 [1].
The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): --Moni3 (talk) & Courcelles 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Any sneerer of Buffy in particular or genre work should simply be sat down in front of a television and told to shut up for three-quarters of an hour while they are shown "The Body"; their awestruck silence afterwards may be taken as recantation or apology." —Ian Shuttleworth, 2004
Not your typical sci-fi/fantasy episode, not in the slightest. Read the article, find a way to watch the episode if you've never seen it, and enjoy. Courcelles 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was a bit taken aback to see this here at FAC as I thought I'd done some copyediting on it here before, and it was already an FA. Another senior moment I suppose. I did do some copyediting on it though, so my brain isn't entirely shot ... yet. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
There are no citations to the Pateman book, nor to the Wilcox & Lavery book. These should be described as "Further reading".- Some of the well-known cited journals/newspapers, e.g. The Guardian, The Boston Herald, Broadcasting & Cable etc should be wikilinked.
- The more obscure publications should have publisher details added. The Daily Standard should have location and publisher details.
"The Futon Critic" is headed by a note: "As a courtesy, please do not reproduce these comments to newsgroups, forums or other online places." Isn't that's what we're doing here?
Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the last one: This source provides three comments from the cast and Whedon about their experiences working on the episodes and perceptions of its impact. Are you asking that we should reject a reliable source because the hosting site requested it? Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that this source cannot be used? --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pateman has been moved to a further reading section, and the other removed entirely. I've wikilinked all the newspapers; it looked better than having 5 or 6 linked, and added publishers to anything that doesn't have a national profile. Locations added when not obvious from the title. As to the Futon Critic, Moni has rewritten the longest quote from there into prose, and the other two times it is used are merely repeating someone else's words. I'll admit I had seen that notice and interpreted it as a prohibition against copying the article to your own site, not using the article as a source as it is being used here. Courcelles 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Although the first image just says just the season 5 dvd for the source, anyway this could be elaborated like the video's source? Like it is a screenshot, camera shot, etc.? Also, it seems kind of odd to have two seperate rationales for it...Ryan Norton 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed those things. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Ryan Norton 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Ryan. Courcelles 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Ryan Norton 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed those things. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section is not about critical reception. Noloop (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, dropped the "critical" part of that. Courcelles 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph seems like trivia. I vote for cutting it, or moving it to the end. Definitely not section-lead material. Noloop (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I rearranged it, as there was a dangling two sentence paragraph at the bottom, but removing the TV ratings/DVD information from an article about a TV episode would bring about instant problems relating to comprehensiveness. Like it or not- and I don't, none of the relevant literature even mentions them- including them is a de facto standard for episode FA's and GA's. Courcelles 05:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph seems like trivia. I vote for cutting it, or moving it to the end. Definitely not section-lead material. Noloop (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work, the issues that I had were flagged by others and have been dealt with. Cavie78 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image/media review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've requested one, though I think Ryan Norton did perform one above, since his comments mentioned the FUR of one image. Courcelles 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Two heads is always better then one I suppose though. Ryan Norton 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've requested one, though I think Ryan Norton did perform one above, since his comments mentioned the FUR of one image. Courcelles 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No criterion three concerns as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola talk 20:46, 24 August 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.