Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 23:41, 8 November 2009 [1].

All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)

edit
Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to standards. Ophois (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The non-free image rationales, especially that of File:Acheridemon.jpg, are not yet sufficient. All of them should state who holds their copyright, be more specific about their purpose, and must explain "why no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media" in their "Replaceability" field.

Try something like what I wrote at File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg—it might seem like I put too many details, but one can never be sure with non-free stuff. Take the safe route. --an odd name 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added more information to them. Hopefully that meets the FUR criteria. Ophois (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much nicer. I thought the only image that would be an issue was the bluescreen one, since bluescreens can be easily mentioned or described in the text; but since Flash mentions the demon one instead...maybe both can be cut? If either is kept, their alt text can probably mention the long hair of the child and the blood on some of the bluescreen men's faces, but I like all of the alt text otherwise. --an odd name 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I can increase the blue-screen use by mentioning Jared Padalecki's bloody appearance, as he had to refilm without blood later when the script changed. Ophois (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query: have images been cleared here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any personal or policy issues with the images. The non-free rationales are good (they were vastly improved), and the free image (yay for those) fits the subject matter well. --an odd name 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Nice work, over all, huge improvement then what I saw before. Here's some things that need improving:
    • First off, there are four fairuse images. I think at least one can go and be replaced with a free use one. How about removing the image in writing, replacing it with File:EricKripkePaley2006.jpg ("Supernatural creator co-wrote both episodes" or something) and add the note about the diseased spirit into the text. Also on images, please downsize the main image - it's unnecessarily huge.
Well, the reason I had the picture and caption is because I couldn't find a place in the writing section for it. It's two lines of text that don't really fit with any of the paragraphs, so it interrupts the flow. Ophois (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, I've seen it work like that in some South Park FAs. Check out Damien (South Park) or Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo to see how a new concept can be introduced fluently in one paragraph. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead: "The once-epic script of "Part 2" had to[...]" - That just sounds biased, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "epic." Reword a bit.
Well, epic means large or big. The original script was very complex and had them running to different churches and stuff. The final version skipped all of this, and was simple. Would "complex" work? Ophois (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writing: "Thus, the writers were required to kill Sam in order to motivate Dean to sell his soul[...]" -> were they really required to do that? reword a bit
Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reception: None of the websites need to be italicized.
Grammatically, websites are supposed to be italicized. Ophois (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Effects: (caption) "John Winchester's return had to be filmed in advance using blue screen due to the actor's busy schedule." -> "[...]due to Mogran's busy schedule."
Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jerrica is listed as one of the site's main writers here. I don't know if that's enough. Ophois (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced yet, sorry. The site itself claims to be online since 2003 (which really isn't much time btw), but otherwise there's nothing about their editing guidelines and all, which means being even a main editor there doesn't really mean much. I would send it packing for byebye. --an odd name 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It doesn't even add that much to reception. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text is present (thanks), but the first alt text entry contains phrases ("demonically possessed", "with energy", "after being shot in the heart with a gun") that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and which therefore need to be removed or reworded (see Verifiability of alt text). Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you all feel that the article is up to standards enough for Support, can you please list so? The last article I nominated didn't pass because not enough people said whether they Supported/Opposed. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an odd name, any other issues? Ophois (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got your talkpage ping. Let's see... Prose
  • lead—"wrap up many ... open up many" feels like repetitive prose, but I'm not quite sure how to fix.
Changed to "The episodes close various storylines running throughout the first two seasons, but also open up many new ones." Ophois (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming—"With only four nights to film the sequence, it was decided to have a "supernatural solar eclipse" so the scenes could be shot day for night." Do you know who decided this?
Production. The director just keeps saying "we", rather than referring to any specific person. Ophois (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "we" to "production". Ophois (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking again, this article uses "it was decided" five times—mix the wording up more. I wasn't thinking of supporting this article (see below), but less so now. 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ophois (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A less major problem (to me) is the use of "noun + -ing" throughout. There may be better ways of writing those sentences (see linked page). 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you give some examples from within the article? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's minor to me, and a bit controversial (see the "More discussion" link on that page), and not all changes to this will actually improve the prose (it may become clumsier!), so don't take these as must-fix examples. The second sentence and last sentence of the lead, and the first sentence of para 2 of "Part 1", all use "noun+ing": "It is a two-part season finale, with "Part One" being first broadcast...", "...with Jessica Harmon gaining...", "...with the sole survivor becoming the leader...". --17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that it flows better that way. Ophois (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more to add; I haven't really checked the article very closely (up to now at least) because I prefer to check shorter ones like Flash's "Interactions". --an odd name 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the above suggests, I'll stay neutral here. I prefer to save support for articles I can look over and quickly see that there's very little else to add, like Interactions and Battle for Naboo below. It does look very good, and is as long an article as a season finale with lots of coverage should get, all images have some sort of alt text, there's no dab links, and links all check out with the link checker tool, so I won't oppose or interfere. --an odd name 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "Featured music" section goes against WP:MOSTV, which basically says not to list "featured music".

Specifically it says, "Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory. In other words, provide context as to why these songs were used for the show." - Unless the companion books discuss why "Wrapped Around Your Finger" is used for the scene where Dean finds his brother, then it's just a list of songs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I not list any songs? Or can I mention the songs for the "Road So Far" sequences and give an example or two of the rock songs used? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the MOS, what you need it context for why the songs were chosen, not identifying where they are used. For example, Smallville#Music talks about the use of pop songs, but in context with how the producers wanted the song used (e.g., or "Memoria", Gough came up with the idea of using Evanescence's "My Immortal" for the final scene of the episode. Gough informed Wade-Reed as soon as he began working on the script what song he wanted to use for the closing scene, as he saw the song as being symbolically about mothers, and in that scene Clark is telling Martha that his first memory as a child was of his biological mother, Lara.). Without it, it's just a list, and IMDb keeps a list of all the songs on each individual episode page. Speaking of, it might be good to link directly to those two pages on IMDb. Also, there is no alt text for the Eric Kripke image. Gotta have it for free images as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it go against policy to list a couple of the artists, such as the new version does? Ophois (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without context as to why the songs were chosen, or even the artists, it's still just a list. If the book itself doesn't go into detail as to why those songs were chosen, then I have to assume that they weren't that important to the episode to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed them, but added some score-related stuff. I also fixed the alt-text on the Kripke image. Ophois (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Because he had worked on the pilot episode of the series, Lennertz was happy to be the one to score the episode featuring the villain Azazel's death." - Why? Do we know what was special about the villain Azazel and the pilot? The sentence suggests there is a connection - I haven't read the whole page, so maybe I'm just missing something that was stated above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new version make more sense? Ophois (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. When you say "theme", do you mean a "musical theme"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ophois (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's probably obvious, but it should probably clarify "musical theme".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Ophois (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits, please check
  • Significant overlinking, for example Fredric Lehne is linked three times in the first four paras, plus the infobox
I think I've improved it. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy uses his mind-control abilities to telepathically send Dean their location. Better perhaps as Andy uses his mind-control abilities to send Dean his location telepathically
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jake comes to and fatally stabs him perhaps better Jake regains consciousness...
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • having given into his demonic side I think it should be "given in to.." since "in" is part of the verb
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devil's Gate is inconsistently capitalised throughout
I only found one instance of this. I think you're confusing "Devil's Gate" with "devil's trap". The former is capitalized in the companion book, while the latter is not. Ophois (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the bark mulch used for the set had to contain manure. Why??
The source for the reason is from associatedcontent, which is blacklisted. The source I'm using for the article just says that it had to be used. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • using tennis balls and a stand-in in place of the actors. How can you use tennis balls in place of an actor? If that's not what it means, what are the balls for?
As references for where the actors are supposed to be. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref Eric Kripke, Sera Gamble, and Bob Singer. Supernatural season 2 DVD commentary - Year of DVD publication and publisher please try this
  • Ref Knight, Nicholas, (Season 2 Companion), p.115 - Missing year of publication, publisher and isbn. try this Season 1 also needs fixing
  • Suggestion, Why not retitle "References" as "Notes", create a new "References" with just the Knight books in it so that you can refer to the pages in notes as eg "Knight (2007) p21" so that you don't have to repeat the whole ref. See Ruff for an example of what I mean Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be easier to just fill out Template:Cite book for the first instance of the season 2 companion book and the season 1 companion book. That way, you see the full citation in the references section, with the rest of them, but can leave the abbreviated form throughout without making any significant changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new version suffice? Ophois (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 5,11 and 19. These magazine articles were presumably written by someone? Please add authors
Done. Ophois (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering what the point of "Cast and characters" section is? You list these people in the infobox, and then have a prose section that basically is personal observations about when they were last on the show. The only relevant info I see in the section is the bit about the producers liking Azazel enough to bring the character back, and Morgan's return. Given that everything about Morgan's return is covered again, couldn't we include the Azazel information somewhere else and drop the redundant re-listing of guest characters?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions on where the Azazel part could be moved to? Ophois (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm doing some c/eing I'll see if I can find a location that might help it. It's good info, I just feel like everything else around it is fluff material used to provide the real info a place to reside.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The character isn't evil. I'm assuming that it's supposed to be an outcast-ish sort of motivation, but it's from an audio commentary, so it doesn't go into detail. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It just sounds weird. Without understanding what that means, the comment just seems odd. I love TBC, and without context it makes it difficult to keep. You said it was stated in the commentary...what if we try to reword it to be, "So-n-So characterizes her as...." - this way it alleviates interpretation on our part.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that I don't know who said it, and I don't have access to the DVD. Ophois (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so they chose to include elements other than escaping demons."- Two things. Which episode? And how does including more elements keep the shots to a minimum? If there is a way to clarify this statement it needs to be done, because it reads like they actually introduced more things when it says they wanted to keep it low.
Oops. It was supposed to say "visual effects shots". I'll change it. Ophois (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no...I understood that part. What got me was that they said they wanted to limit those, and then the following statement sounds like they added. When I read it, I'm left with the impression that the demons and other elements they want to add are digital elements, and not physical ones that would allow them to save money on digital stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demon smoke is the hardest visual effect for them to do, and it's easier to just blue screen someone in than create complex visual effects. Ophois (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the sentence is still confusing. I don't know what "elements" they chose to include, and in what way that was different than the norm. The sentence really needs to explain that better. Otherwise, it just contradicts itself based on the words being used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new elements were the glimpses of previous villains. Ophois (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to work that in so that it makes better sense? I mean, the way you are explaining it, it sounds like the reused old stuff to save money. If that's not it, then it's still not clear, and I might need to see the whole excerpt from the source so I can understand better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'For the gates of Hell, we worked in prep to keep the shot count down,' recalls visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden. 'But to dumb down the gates of Hell would not fly by any means. So instead of just having demon smoke shots, we shot elements of characters on blue screens dressed in wardrobes from past episodes - we had the Woman in White, Hook Man, the reaper - and we showed them in lightning flashes.'" Ophois (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so then we could say, "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so instead of digitally creating demon smoke shots, visual effects supervisor visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden filmed stand-ins dressed as characters from past episodes—Woman in White, Hook Man, the Reaper—on a blue screen and inserted them into the scene in post-production." - Or something along those lines. Based on what he says, it appears that they chose to film live-action people as opposed to digitially creating those shots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the reception section, some of the reviews come across as promotional pieces you'd see when you're trying to sell something. For instance, the TV Guide review just pulls exerts from an excited comment, but doesn't really provide context as to why they found the episode so enjoyable. It's not enough to say "TV Guide liked the episode", because we're using them as a professional opinion and a professional opinion should be able to explain what was so good about it. (e.g., discussing an actor's performance, how the writers ended the season, etc.) - per the MOS on reception. Another example is, "The finale has also been described as "terrific" by Sci-fi.com,[28] "juicy" by Entertainment Weekly,[18] and just plain "wow" by TV Guide." - Ok, but why? I mean, as it stands right now, I'm referring to those statements, it looks more like we're trying to sell a DVD, because it looks like the stuff you'd find on a DVD boxset. Now, the Burns stuff is good because it provides us with reasons for why he liked and disliked things (quick point, it says "this episode" and we need to know which he is talking about).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New version suffice? Ophois (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall..much better. The only other thing I can think of is the statement: "Frederic Lehne received praise for his portrayal of the demon Azazel, described as "riveting",[31] "great", and "appropriately creepy"." - I understand that how we're using the terms, but I was wonder if the sources went into more detail about what made him so riveting, great, and creepy. It would just really benefit the article to have that context - though, if it's not really there I can live with how it is. The other thing is the award for Jessica Harmon, it seems odd to place it in the middle of critic reception, when it's not critical. It should probably go either at the top, or this could be one of those times when a single sentence paragraph will have to suffice at the very end. After all that, I'll look over everything again and so long as there are no more issues I'll give this article my full support. Great work so far.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't go into detail. They just briefly mention and praise the actors. I've moved the Jessica Harmon bit as a third paragraph. Ophois (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

Dabs and links otherwise fine. RB88 (T) 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Ophois (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have any issues? Ophois (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2009 (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_article_candidates/All_Hell_Breaks_Loose_(Supernatural)/archive1&oldid=1138454230"