Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Made in America (The Sopranos)/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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [1].

Made in America (The Sopranos)

edit
Nominator(s): –FunkyVoltron talk

I'm nominating the final episode of The Sopranos for FA status as I think it qualifies: It includes all the essential information and follows Wikipedia:Television episodes closely. The article has been peer reviewed. I know that the ratings sections is very short but I'd prefer to keep it like that. There are also two red links in the article for two decidedly notable actors; I'll create stub articles for them if that's a concern.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: There are four non-free images in the article. I have concerns with Wikipedia:NFCC #3 and #8. Fair use images should be used only when the readers' understanding of the text cannot be complete without the image. See the use of images in Mulholland Dr.. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they greatly enhance the article but I suppose one or both of the images in the Plot section could be removed.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between illustrating the article and including an image that ensures the reader cannot understand the issues in the article without referring to the image in question. Helping your cause for keeping the images would be referencing something specific in the image in the text. For example, if you included an image because of the characters interacting, the text should highlight that, and the image summary should also. It should be explicit. In the summary for Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg, look at the Fair Use Rationale, particularly numbers 1 and 8, and then the 2nd paragraph of the Mulholland_Drive_(film)#Style section. I recommend using this kind of fair use rationale in the images for the article. I would also recommend taking a long hard look at all four non-free images to determine if all should stay. You may end up removing two or more. Let me know if you have questions. Images are particularly difficult to deal with. I had to learn by doing what you're doing... --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been resolved. see below.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing of images appears to be fine. I recommend adjusting placement, however. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as RTE.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, done.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I remember something about Al Gore being given a Halliburton with this episode in because it aired when he was on a plane, and not being allowed to open it until airtime. Or am I confusing it with The West Wing? Sceptre (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's true. Here's the story. Didn't include it in the article, though, as it seemed to be too trivial.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to use all available sources to definitively cement its notability :) Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Reading the Production section leads me to wonder about the prose of the rest of the article. The section is illogically organized, and reads more like a collection of facts than a summary of the episode's production. Odd use of present perfect tense in three of the four first sentences (the sentence structure also being dully repetitious). "To insure that the final scene..." - spot what's wrong here. BuddingJournalist 19:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a collection of facts regarding the production is what the production is in the end. Tried to make the prose more varied.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I reworked the prose to the best of my ability—english being my third language—and tried to make the sections more coherent.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section shouldn't strive to be a mere collection of random facts. It should summarize the production of the episode in a logical fashion, with prose that flows smoothly – from concept (who wrote the script; how did the ideas germinate?) to shooting to post-production. Here, the last three paragraphs are disjointed ideas. Readers find out when the episode was planned, but nothing more about its conception. By the way, the use of present perfect and "to insure..." is still there. You might want to try working with a native English speaker on the prose. "He has maintained that the final scene was filmed almost exactly as he had envisioned it, and has also denied that the ending is a setup for a future film, but has mentioned that a Sopranos feature is still a possibility, stating "[t]here may be a day where we all come up with something."" What Tony would call a winding snake. BuddingJournalist 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the case with feature films were sufficient information for a section like that is available. For television episodes, however, that go in the general production section of the show's article. Have a look at some other featured episode and you'll find that they follow pretty much the same model as this article. Redid the sentence.–FunkyVoltron talk 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, resolved. Removed all screencaps except the one in the infobox, which should be that very picture. I removed the Image:Sopranosfinale.jpg image as well as it was too similar. I also added another free image to the production section to get some more illustrations.–FunkyVoltron talk 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b. The lead doesn't delve into much of the story or provide a straightfoward summation of the entire article. The plot section is convoluted and confusing for anyone who has never watched an episode, not to mention it seems to neglect facts, if what I read about the episode are correct- wasn't there some sinister character heading into the bathroom or something? It's mentioned in the reception (and by the way you shouldn't have a two sentence heading ["Final scene"]) but not in the plot. There are tons of stubby paragraphs and headers. I'm concerned about the lack of print sources from newspapers and the slim production section as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. You see, it's impossible to do a detailed write-up of the final scene in the plot section and still keep it 600 words or less. Hell, that would be 600 words in itself. As such, details concerning the final scenes appearing only in other sections is inevitable but I've always mentioned that the discussed plot point is from the final scene. As far as the lead goes...you lost me. How does it not summarize the article? Everything's there. What are you even talking about? The story of the episode is hard to summarize as The Sopranos generally doesn't do "Tony and his crew rob a bank"-type storylines. I added a new opening line to the plot section to clarify things. What is written in the lead about the plot is what actually happens in the episode in very broad strokes. Please point out some stubby paragraphs so I can overhaul them.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also very hard to find information about the production of the episode. You see, The Sopranos isn't Lost. I think all the essentials are there and episode articles with shorter production sections are featured articles.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't follow the organization of the article itself—ideally, plot should come first, then development, then reaction. There's nothing from the series DVD commentary-and considering the blasted box set has something like five hours of bonus features, I'm sure some of that covers the development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked lead. Is it okay now? Sadly, I don't have the box set (yet) although from my understanding that's more of a general discussion of the ending and not anecdotes regarding the shooting.–FunkyVoltron talk 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately oppose This article just isn't ready yet (not polished enough), and I am not confident that this can be fixed quickly. As you have already tried peer review, I strongly suggest to ask an uninvolved editor to copyedit and/or take the advice given in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (that essay and its exercises are great; they helped me in my first FAC). Below are a few issues that immediately caught my eye, to illustrate where the article still needs (major) work.

  • Plot is too long. The article doesn't need to mention every detail, and it lost me after the second paragraph (information overload). Wikipedia is not a replacement for watching the show, so you should really try to get this below 450 words. It's also a great exercise for the next point...
  • Prose: This is not a court hearing, so the article can skip "He has maintained" and "he denied" (unless these are controversial claims). There is too much redundance and unnecessary wording, e.g. the first paragraph of the Production section can be trimmed to: Show runner David Chase planned the series ending during the 21-month hiatus between seasons, a "long break" that HBO granted him after season five. The final scene was filmed almost exactly as Chase had envisioned. It was not intended as a setup for a future film, although Chase stated "[t]here may be a day where we all come up with something" for a possible Sopranos feature.[2][3][4] The series finale is Chase's second Sopranos episode to direct besides the pilot episode. That's 20% down without losing any information. This is the article's weakest point after the overlong plot summary.
  • Reception: Too many and too short subsections. As a (my) rule of thumb, a subsection should have at least one four-line paragraph (preferably two) to earn its right of existance
  • Refs use both 2008-11-19 and 23 November 2008 style for the accessdate parameter. Ref 11 uses two external links - why? Ref 39: I know the Emmys have a website for listing all their awards and noms, so add that link.
  • External links: at least three of the ELs are unnecessary (general IMDb, TWoP review, essay) - work them into the article as refs, or don't mention them at all

It seems this is your first FAC, and you may feel discouraged by all the negativity and nitpicking. Please don't take it personally if this FAC fails. You can take an article to FAC as often as you like, and you'll always get better with each attempt (with this article or another). – sgeureka t•c 22:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article but please reconsider after reading my comments. According to this MOS, the plot is fine like it is. That sentence was very helpful, I reworked it slightly and added it to the article. Refs use the same style, it's just that the templates (cite web and cite news) currently use different display styles. I suppose someone's working on that. That should absolutely not be an issue as that's something I can't control. The Emmy ref was a good suggestion, I fixed that. External links should not be a concern.
This is far from my first FAC. I've passed articles before. It's a sad affair as always. People seem to be more concerned what they personally think can benefit the article instead of helping the nominator pass the article. As opinions often differ and contradict, it's quite a ridiculous balancing act but I guess that's what Wikipedia is so I'm not going to complain (any more than that, anyway).–FunkyVoltron talk 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says, "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words". The article has 602 words. Even if we account for "Complicated plots may take more space", the plot summary is simply not accessible for someone who has never watched the show (okay, I admit that part of this may be because it was a serialised show). The first paragraph says Tony goes somewhere, doesn't get what he wants, and goes somewhere - why is it necessary to say where he goes? The second paragraph talks of Tony's widowed sister - what's up with that? That's what the general reader asks himself when he reads the article, and it wastes his time. (I'm just saying.) – sgeureka t•c 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at it like that, it's almost impossible to write summaries of television episodes. Plot summaries are allowed to exceed the recommended word limit when it's a complex show and The Sopranos is a very, very complex show. It's quite simply impossible to summarize the plot any better than that as, like with many Sopranos episodes, there is no "story" in the traditional bullshit network sense. If TV episode articles' plot summaries were written like you advise, you'd have to recap the entire season or the entire series to explain what's going on...and that doesn't make for easy reading. Let's compromise, baby.–FunkyVoltron talk 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article has some work to do before reaching FA status but it is on its way.
I've split up the second lead sentence about the episodes position within the series and season to make it easier to digest.
With regard to the plot summary I've been through it again and pruned out the one sentence references to characters that might confuse the casual reader and reduced the word count by removing more of the quotes. I'm not sure where the word count stands now but hopefully it is under that MOS 500 word guideline and still provides a reasonable summary of the plot for the casual reader.
I've copy edited the reception section and merged several of the short one paragraph sections together.
I think this article needs a further copy edit from an independent third party. Once that is done and any suggestions have been acted upon I'd be happy to offer my support.
--Opark 77 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I've made some minor edits to your edits. I think it should be able to pass now.–FunkyVoltron talk 11:43, 16 December 2008 (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/Made_in_America_(The_Sopranos)/archive1&oldid=1049171886"