Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Critical Role (campaign two)/archive1

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Critical Role (campaign two)

[edit]

Critical Role (campaign two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Role has become a big cultural phenomenon, the channel is among the highest earners on Twitch, and the show has propelled the actual play genre forward. I'm nominating this article specifically because it is a nearly complete work (ex: it has plot summaries for its 141 episodes unlike other Critical Role episode lists) with work done by multiple editors. I've just finished addressing points of improvement raised during a Guild of Copy Editors review. This is my first time nominating an article & I look forward to your reviews! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nomader

Oppose until the plot section and other minor comments are dealt with.

Prose (1):

  • In the lead, there's a citation after the phrase "four months after the conclusion of the first campaign." Per WP:CITEFOOT, "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." I think this isn't a contentious citation here and would be fine at the end of the sentence instead.
  • I think that the upcoming Amazon adaptation could be merged into the end of the previous paragraph but could also see the argument for keeping them separate. Defer to you here.
  • Not sure why there's a use of a direct quote with the Collider article in the beginning of the "Production and format" section. I think it could say something along the lines of (please put this into the right words but I think you'll see where I'm going with this): "Collider reported that the second campaign had aired for over 530 hours, including 100 hours dedicated to battles, and previewed that the finale would be seven hours long."
  • The reception section isn't really grouped by theme, and is instead kind of grouped by reviewer. Take a look at The Simpsons (season_10)#Critical reception to see a good example of how a reception section can be better at giving information based on themes for the reader.
    • I regrouped it and brought in a few more sources; P1 is on the recommendation of this campaign as the Critical Role starting point, P2 is the viewership (which is fairly limited compared to something like Nielsen ratings), P3 is the criticism of the show's length (both individual episodes & as a series), and P4 is on the plot points critics covered (mostly Molly's death & his body returning as an antagonist). Let me know if that wasn't conveyed or if there are any other places of improvement. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness (3):

  • (a) I think that the plot section is far too broad here. For comparison, MOS:TVPLOT recommends that whole seasons of television shows use *either* episode tables that limit descriptions to 200 words, or to a prose summary of the entire season of no more than 500 words -- not both. I know this isn't a television show, but it's the closest guide that I could think of here (a serial series with hours of content). Examples of Featured Lists that I think do a good job of showcasing how this split works are listed here: The Simpsons (season 10), Desperate Housewives (season 1), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), Bleach (season 9). In this case, it's obviously not exactly a 1:1 comparison -- I would keep the setting section (which is important context for the detail found in the episode summaries) but then would cut the entire rest of the plot section and allow the episode listings to do the heavy lifting here.
    Honestly, good question -- my gut based on other FL examples of long-running television shows (again the closest thing I can think of in comparison to this situation) like Avatar episodes and other series would be that you would actually just not have it at all. I'd keep the description to extremely broad strokes with details of settings, and maybe small highlights of particularly poignant moments -- but the episode descriptions will tell the story in more detail in a "summary style" (per MOS:SUMMARY) in the Season article, and then the full list should just include the setting. You already have a plot section that gets told through each of the episode descriptions.
    In my own personal editing example, I think back to when I gave a super-detailed plot summary of the play Hamlet for the game Elsinore that I collaborated on with a user from the Shakespeare WikiProject, and when I was going through the GA process, the reviewer (rightfully) cut it down to like, a quarter of the size (see this diff: [2]). And it felt a bit weird to me to cut it out because we'd spent so much time with them tweaking it and sourcing it and figuring it out... just to realize that it was way too much detail. In this case, I think it's an incredible effort of highlighting and focusing 550 hours (!!!) of content but it's redundant to the descriptions. Nomader (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense! It was an original holdover as the really long plot summary was what led to the individual campaigns being split off from the Critical Role article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (b) There should be a citation for Ashley Johnson in the main cast section (you can probably just use #11 which is above it).

Style (5):

A spot check of citations was all good to go. This is unbelievably thorough work, and although it needs some large changes (mostly the removal of the "Plot" section of the synposis along with a full re-working of the reception section), the level of work to summarize all of those episodes is extraordinary. Please ping me once you're finished with edits and I'll be happy to strike my oppose -- this review is also being submitted for the Wikicup. Nomader (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Nomader! I'll start addressing some of the points you listed above and ping you when I'm done. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, sounds good! Just a heads up that I'll be on vacation from tomorrow, Thursday February 16, to Tuesday February 21st -- in case I don't get back to you right away, I'll only be checking sporadically during that time. Nomader (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader: Just wrapped the last point (notes on the reception sections above). I hope you have a good holiday! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: Luckily you caught me 24 hours early! The reception section is an incredible improvement and reads much, much better. I'm happy to support now that all of my concerns have been addressed. Really impressive work to everyone involved (especially on the summary plot notes for each episode which I haven't talked that much about here). Thanks for being so prompt! Nomader (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your feedback! I've also dropped a request for a fair-use map at the Graphics Lab; they have a queue but the list might end up with a map for the setting section down the line. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]

Saw this has been sitting here for a while, so I figured I'd take a look.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for taking a look! I'll try to tackle a few of these suggestions now but probably will do the bulk of it later this week when I have more time (maybe Tuesday or Wednesday). I'll strikethrough or comment above as I go. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two follow up questions:
  1. In terms of article links, are more general mythological articles fine? The issue with linking to D&D specific articles is that most of them are redirects to larger list articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Where) which may not actually include an entry on a specific creature or item (a lot of these redirects are being deleted due to this). I'll go through the episode list when I have more time to see what can be linked.
  2. Could you explain the plural verb issue? I did a quick google and I can't tell what the issue is so I'm not sure how the sentence should be changed.
Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. General terms are fine; I think it's just useful to know what they're facing.
  2. You generally treat "the group"/"the party" as plural, so the verbs should be plural; i.e., "The party aid" instead of "The party aids". (This link might help to explain it better – since the members play as individuals, the collective noun should be treated as plural.)
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: I was still working through the advice above but got a bit swamped in IRL. What is the process for resubmitting? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (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/Critical_Role_(campaign_two)/archive1&oldid=1157492264"