Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Awake task force/A-Class review/Log

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a list of all A-Class reviews from Awake.

Approved nominations

[edit]

Failed nominations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not approved by TRLIJC19 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Awake (TV series)

[edit]
Nominator(s): TBrandley 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the criteria. All issues from the previous A-Class review, which was failed, have now been resolved. Cheers! TBrandley 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The following are my comments from the second failed FAC that remain unaddressed since September 8. These represent some minor errors as well as serious misquotes and factual inaccuracies.

Lead:
The first three paragraphs of Conception need work. As it stands, it is a jumbled mess of misquotes, IMO.

  • "Killen stated that the cancellation of Lone Star was a good platform to explore new ideas for a potential television show." What does this mean? How is the cancellation a good platform to explore new ideas? After reading the source, I still don't see what you are trying to say here. It seems to me that Killen is referring to the duality concept, not the cancellation.
  • "Jennifer Salke, the president of the entertainment division of NBC, encouraged Killen to conceive a concept for a future television series after the cancellation of Lone Star." This is mentioned after Killen's quote about creating the series. It seems out of place. Why jump back to Lone Star? Move to beginning of paragraph, or tack on to previous paragraph.
  • "Initially, Salke and Korman looked to sell acquisition rights to Fox." I don't see where in the source it says they went to Fox first. (From the source: "Korman and Salke slipped the spec to a handful of networks, including NBC, whose not-yet-official chief Bob Greenblatt had been a big Lone Star fan." and "Also on that list was Fox,")
  • "Although it successfully made its way into the lower executive branches of the company, the script was declined by Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly, who felt apprehensive upon reading it, stating that Killen was trying to "sneak a cable show" onto the channel." In the source, the phrase "sneak a cable show" was used in reference to Killen selling Lone Star to Fox. It had nothing to do with Awake.

Production team:

  • "Gordon later compared the television series to The Good Wife. He said that The Good Wife has so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He compared it to Awake, saying, then, "What makes an Awake episode?"
Note: Since my review, sentence has changed to "He said that The Good Wife had so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He says, then, "Why is this an 'Awake' episode?""
    • Not sure why you changed 'has' to 'had'. The show is still has procedural aspects.
    • "He says, then," Why did you make that tense change here? Use 'he stated'.
    • I still think you are missing the point of this discussion in the source. As is, I feel this makes little sense to the reader. What are you trying to get across to the reader here?

Casting:

  • "Killen thought that the premise behind the series would be relatable to audiences." - Another misquote. No where is this mentioned in the source. The discussion is of Lone Star: "there were aspects of Lone Star that were more difficult to get a wider, broader audience interested in".

I've only covered the Lead and Production section. In addition, my main concerns (and those of another reviewer) from the first FAC review regarding poor paraphrasing were never fully addressed. This, combined with the obvious misquotes I have stumbled upon, lead me to continue to believe that accuracy is a huge issue here. Several of my issues are related to this edit where you were trying to paraphrase for FAC. Just further evidence of the paraphrasing and accuracy problems. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Logical Fuzz mentioned that he only covered two sections, and I reiterate his concerns that all issues from previous FACs were not correctly addressed. That, along with the fact that this has been opened for a month with no supports, two opposes, and actionable objections not correctly resolved, compels me to apologetically fail this nomination. I recommend another peer review before renominating the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not approved by TRLIJC19 23:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Awake (TV series)

[edit]
Nominator(s): TBrandley 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets all criteria. Cheers, TBrandley 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved source review from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks done at FAC.

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • "Despite the series' relatively short life span, it has had large fan support campaigns who teamed up to create the "Save Awake" campaign to convince networks to revive the show." -> You've two uses of "campaign" quite close together here. Perhaps "a large fanbase" or "a large degree of fan support" would eliminate the first one.
  • "He contrasted it to the Fox television series Fringe" -> compared to, or contrasted with
  • "he's a cop who sees clues and details that crossover from one world to the next" -> "crossover" as one word is a noun, not a verb, if it's like this in the source then mark it with {{sic}} as it's a mistake.
  • "However, later, Laura Allen garnered the role of Hannah" -> not entirely sure "garner" works here; and having both "however" and "later" stops the flow dead. Try "However, Laura Allen was cast instead".
  • "The actor was later cast as Ed Hawkins, a cop who took over Michael's" -> tone. "Cop" is too informal, try "police officer" or the like instead.
  • Think you could narrow that quotebox down (the "Two Birds" one), it could be a bit narrower without being any taller to save space.
  • Give a little context for Dallas and Newhart (decade, etc).
  • I'm not sure I'm comfortable describing a character's personality and citing it to an episode; maybe reviews have picked up on these traits as well so there's no interpretation going on?
  • Split rating and share into two columns in the rating table; and set the table to sortable
  • Seems alright aside from these points. GRAPPLE X 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments! I fixed all of the comments, expect the reference one, I don't see any problem with referencing episode IMO. TBrandley 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about referencing episodes per se, it's that you're inferring character traits from first-hand observation; watching a character's actions and then describing their characteristics. If you use an episode to cite "JR Ewing was shot by Kristin Shepard" (an observable fact) then that's perfectly fine, if you cite an episode to support "Dale Cooper is a political centrist with libertarian leanings" then you're inferring a characterisation based on what is implied rather than shown. For things like "He is also disorganized, and sometimes has odd behavior" I'd like to see a secondary source used rather than inferring these things through first-hand observation. GRAPPLE X 03:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, in the episode, it did state that he was like that, but I'll look for a source. "Instead of delving into mythology, though, Lee asks his students about diagnosing schizophrenia; when one of the students answers, we cut to a montage of Michael trying to go about his daily routine, using ritual to hold his mind together, and not doing such a great job of it." that's what it states at A.V. Club, which is in episode, but it doesn't actually cover what is said, but as said above, it is actually said that he is disorganized. "The stress of Britten's predicament is starting to wear on him. Though each incident seems relatively minor" is also pretty close I suppose, which is at NBC.com. Not sure. Regards, TBrandley 03:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's explicitly mentioned in dialogue, I believe {{cite episode}} has a |quote= parameter that could be used so as to demonstrate this isn't OR; if possible I'd also include the time in the episode that it's mentioned. The former AVC quote there would also work, not sure about the latter. GRAPPLE X 03:33, 20 September 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:WikiProject_Television/Awake_task_force/A-Class_review/Log&oldid=928338245"