Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati/archive3

< 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 User:Ian Rose on 09:47, 1 February 2013‎ [1].

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati

edit
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third time is the charm! This is the second episode of The X-Files's seventh season. It's an interesting little installment, in that it takes many of its elements from Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ and was co-written by star David Duchovny. It was recently promoted to Good Article several months ago and was also promoted to A-Class within the last few weeks. In the last month or so, it has undergone extensive copy-editing and prose-improvement. In fact, just recently, it underwent an extremely thorough copy-edit/peer-review courtesy of Sarastro. I feel that the article's prose, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Provisional support (with copy-editing disclaimer): I commented heavily at the peer review and I think this article has improved enormously since the last FAC; the nominator has put in a huge amount of work. I've copy-edited quite a bit, and have been picking away for quite some time; it is possible that there are a few prose issues I have missed (or made worse myself!) so my support is provisional until someone else takes a look at the prose. I had hoped others would comment before I did, but I think this one has been neglected here for long enough! I also think it may be worth asking SandyGeorgia to have a look, as she found a few issues at previous FACs for this article. But whatever happens to this FAC, well done for all the work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged SandyGeorgia to see if she has any suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
got the message, will get here as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comments of SandyGeorgia and Giants2008 below, I am confident enough to switch to full support, with the qualification that nothing comes up from other reviewers. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – The article definitely reads better than it did the last time I saw it, when I offered support at the first FAC. I still found some issues lurking in there, though.

  • "to discover Mulder in coma induced by exposure to the shards from an alien spaceship wreck." Surely this needs "a" before "coma"?
  • "that extraterrestrials were involved in ancient mass extinctions on on Earth...". Spot the repeated word.
  • Synopsis: Since FBI is now spelled out here, I imagine the full use should be moved to the lead, where the abbreviated version can be given to allow for the use of the initials later.
  • Writing: "Carter explained that there must be conflict between Mulder and Scully in order for the show's 'believer versus skeptic' dynamic to work properly." As is often the case, "in order" is redundant and unnecessary verbiage. It should be taken out of this sentence.
  • Casting and filming: "A scene in which Mulder watched himself age was filmed but was cut for unknown reasons." To avoid having two "was" uses in four words, I'd suggest dropping the second one.
  • Themes: Syndicate was linked in an earlier section (I think the first link is a new one), meaning that this is a touch of overlinking at the moment.
  • Broadcast and reception: I see U.S. and US in this section. I'm going to take a wild guess that Sarastro added the latter one. :-) To me, the one with the periods is the one to use for an American program, but I'd tolerate things the other way if they were made consistent. You're also going to need to look at UK, if changes are made.
  • "In the UK, 'The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati' aired on Sky1 and was viewed by 840,000 viewers". Two big issues here. First, we already said this was aired on Sky1 and had a wikilink to the station. At a minimum, the wikilink should be taken out; I'd support going farther and removing the Sky1 mention here due to its repetitive nature. Second, we have "viewed" and "viewers" close together. Given that "watched" appears later in the sentence, how about "seen" for the first usage?
  • "Kenneth Silber of Space.com" was mentioned by name in the previous section. With that established, the mention here should be reduced to the author's last name.
  • "He did, however, write that...". Sandy's going to be on you big-time if you have "however" without a really good reason. Her prose resolution for 2013 is to cut down on its usage. In this case, "He did" is a good enough transfer that I think "however" can be cut safely, while leaving the implied meaning intact.
  • Remove "the" from "calling it the 'very purple prose'"? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All comments taken into consideration; I believe I have fixed them. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – After the fixes here and below, and the peer review that tightened the article's writing significantly, I'm confident that it meets FA requirements now. My compliments for sticking with the article for this long. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

edit

See some minor issues that could be cleaned up, only glanced at one or two sections of prose:

  • Unsure why the article uses US-style date, but the citations use international dates (month day, year versus day month year).
  • Most (but not all) of the long citations end in a full stop, while the short citations have no final period.
  • I flagged inline one missing date on a DVD citation -- pls review all.
  • Unclear ...
    and ranked as the 27th most-watched episode for the week ending November 14. ...
    The 27th most-watched of all of the X-files? Of all episodes of any series on TV that week? Of all X-files episodes for that year? In the later example for the UK in the same paragraph, it is made clear, but not here for the US.
  • were tuned into the episode.
    were tuned in to the episode ???
  • Missing comma or something after writing? Not sure ...
    Silber was disappointed in its resolution, writing "This episode adeptly combines
  • Please review throughout for logical puncutation (WP:MOSLQ).
    He dismissed "Mulder's one-week recovery from his horrifying ordeal" as "facile and unconvincing."

These are generally trivialities (but ones that should be cleaned up); overall, the article is much improved, and my previous oppose is addressed. Kudos to Sarastro1-- good enough that I probably won't revisit, so delegates can consider my concerns addressed once ... they are ! And I see Giants is carrying forward the "however" torch :) Be sure to search the article for every use of however, subsequently, recently, today, and currently or I'll come after 'ya !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for responding and commenting. I believe I have addressed all of the issues. I will continue to A) look for logical punctuation issues and B) clear the rest of the "however"s.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support with some comments by Ruby2010:

  • "Initial reviews were mixed and the plot and dialogue came in for criticism." I think "attracted criticism" would work better here.
  • "In this episode, Scully returns from Africa to discover Mulder in a coma induced by exposure to the shards from an alien spaceship wreck." Recommend you remove bolded
  • I would wikilink Navajo
  • Do the 2 citations at the end of the background section cover both paragraphs? I know that plot sections don't have to be cited, but it's a bit odd that you provide cites for part of the section but not all of it
  • I notice that you sometimes provide two citations when you use the same author (such as Shapiro (2000), p. 28 & Shapiro (2000), p. 29). Why not combine these into Shapiro (2000), pp. 28–29?

Otherwise, the content looks solid. Assuming the above issues get resolved, I'd be happy to support. Ruby 2010/2013 06:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it loo now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good except I still see a few citations than can be combined. Ruby 2010/2013 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I get them all now? I don't see anymore, but I might have missed one. I also fixed some link issues, but those were unrelated.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the two Donaldson refs (pages 186 & 209). Ruby 2010/2013 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Is this the right way to bundle them now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they look better now. Ruby 2010/2013 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks.

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/The_Sixth_Extinction_II:_Amor_Fati/archive3&oldid=1136095202"