Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/What Lies Ahead/archive1
- 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 19:31, 28 December 2011 [1].
What Lies Ahead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): DAP388 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has recently become a good article, and has gone through a peer review. Having addressed those issues brought in the peer review, I now believe that this article meets the criteria of a featured article. —DAP388 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyscape check - Copyscape searches have revealed that 10% of the prose matches this website, [2] which claims to be by Robert Kirkman. Graham Colm (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done— DAP388 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, more details are needed. It is worrying that this was not spotted earlier (i.e. the GA and Peer Review). Has the prose been completely rewritten with no close paraphrasing? We still have "Shane confides to Lori that he is planning to leave the group on his own as soon as he can slip away," which is the same as here [3]. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't see that one, thank you for catching that. I have completely rewritten the plagiarized bits of the plot section. Those that weren't plagiarized received minors edits or were left alone. How much details should be added? Is it enough to fail the nomination?— DAP388 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, more details are needed. It is worrying that this was not spotted earlier (i.e. the GA and Peer Review). Has the prose been completely rewritten with no close paraphrasing? We still have "Shane confides to Lori that he is planning to leave the group on his own as soon as he can slip away," which is the same as here [3]. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until my concerns about plagiarism are resolved. Featured Article Candidates should be honed to perceived perfection before nominating. Clearly, this nomination was premature. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –
- This one's purely on my instinct, but I don't have a good feeling about what Graham uncovered, having had a similar experience with the nominator at FLC. There may be problems there that go deeper than can be solved at FAC. I'm also finding some issues with prose and other things that concern me.
- "'What Lies Ahead' broke the record for the most watched cable drama in basic cable history...". First "cable" is a pure redundancy and is best removed.
- Plot: Still see the "Shane confides to Lori..." sentence that was questioned above. If plagarism is pointed out to an editor, I'd expect it to be fixed ASAP.
- "prompting the survivors to seeking shelter under abandoned vehicles." "seeking" → "seek"?
- "Dale hands a screwdriver via an opening in the truck's roof, to which Andrea stabs the walker." Don't know what this is meant to say. Is it supposed to be "with which Andrea stabs the walker"? That's still awkward in the flow of the sentence, by the way.
- "Meanwhile, T-Dog fatally damages his arm and attracts walkers from his trail of blood." I'm calling factual error here. I watched this episode, and T-Dog wasn't killed, nor was his arm amputated as implied by "fatally".
- "Daryl rescues him by stabbing a walker; with T-Dog, they hide under nearby dead bodies, whose scent will protect them." First, "they" implies that there was a group of people with T-Dog; I only remember Daryl. If that's the case, shouldn't it be "he hides"? Second, "protects them" is a little cleaner in terms of writing than "will protect them".
- "urges her to seek refuge in a hole near the riverbed so he can retract the attention of the walkers." Retract attention? Word change is badly needed.
- "A frantic and distraught Carol blames Grimes for losing Sophia". Who is Grimes? I see from the wikilink that it's Rick. Adding his last name early in this section would alleviate this kind of confusion.
- "Afterwards, Rick, his son Carl, and Shane discover a whitetail deer in the woods." You already said Carl was Rick's son in the opening of the section. It doesn't need to be repeated here.
- "A six-part internet series were broadcast on AMC...". "were" → "was". Can't have basic issues like this when an article is at FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I share the concerns of Graham Colm and Giants2008, and I would like to add that I am not seeing what File:WhatLiesAhead.jpg is adding to the article. There is no automatic entitlement to non-free screenshots in episode articles, and this one does not seem to be adding all that much; if you're looking for some decoration, how about File:The Walking Dead 2010 Intertitle.png? This is by no means a terrible article, and I hope you're able to resolve the issues and bring it back to FAC when ready. J Milburn (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in addition to issues raised by above reviewers, I'm also seeing inconsistencies in citation formatting and sources of questionable reliability - for example this. I would recommend that this nomination be withdrawn to allow time for the concerns raised in this review to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 28 December 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.