Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2018 [1].

All Souls (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Halloween passed several months ago, you can still find some thrills and chills with this nomination. This article is about an American paranormal hospital drama, created by Stuart Gillard and Stephen Tolkin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from April 17, 2001, to August 31, 2001. Based on the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom, the series revolves around the medical staff of a haunted teaching hospital, and includes fictional characters and events from the American Civil War. All Souls suffered from low viewership, and was placed on hiatus following the broadcast of the fist two episodes. The show was canceled after the remaining four episodes were broadcast. Critical response to All Souls was primarily positive, with commentators praising its use of horror and paranormal elements.

This is my fifth FAC nomination for a UPN television show, with the other four being Love, Inc., Eve, Mercy Point, and Chains of Love. It is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance and I hope that everything is having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Lingzhi[edit]

All web cites seem to be missing retrieval dates; a few are missing archive urls and dates. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lingzhi: I have been told in the past that retrieval dates are not necessary for archived resources as the retrieval dates are primarily used as a point of reference if/when the link dies. I personally do not find a use for retrieval dates on archived resources as it just creates more clutter in my opinion. I have used the iabot in the past for archiving resources on articles, and I believe that the references/links that are not already archived may not be work on citation machine (as that site does have difficulty with certain sites). Hopefully that answers your concerns, but let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Christie: I never use web resources... is the argument above valid? If so, I'll try to add it to the script Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lingzhi:I believe that's right; archived web pages don't need access dates. As Aoba47 says, the access date gives you a reference point, but the archived URL is already tied to a date so the access date doesn't matter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrace (2008): pp. 254-55 Hyphen in pg. range; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi: Thank you for the note. That source is already archived though, and I just tested out the archive link and did not have any issues with accessing it. Since the link is dead (and marked that way in the article), it should not be an issue due to the archive version/link being available. Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2[edit]

Not too experienced with this project but I will give it a quick support. However, there seems to be some free images for some characters so I would advise you to add one of them and also trimming the caption of Adam Rodriguez's image. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support; I have trimmed down the caption as suggested, and added an image of McCouch to the "Characters" section as he is the lead actor playing the lead character on the show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • "created by Stuart Gillard and Stephen Tolkin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from April 17, 2001, to August 31, 2001." Maybe it's just me, but the way it is phrased, "which originally aired for" means "Gillard and Tolkin aired for.."
  • I think that this is a rather standard way of phrasing it, so I am not entirely sure on how to change it, but I am open for suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom, the series revolves" - I find "Lars von Trier's miniseries" better than "the Lars von Trier miniseries" (it's your call). Also, series ... series.
  • "Critical response to All Souls was primarily positive, with commentators praising its use of horror and paranormal elements." "with + noun + verb + ing" is best avoided at FA articles.
  • "The hauntings at All Souls started during the Civil War" - why isn't All Souls in italics here? Is it the name of the hospital? If so, this should be clarified.
  • "The exact nature of De Brae's loyalty is called into question, with Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle wondering if she will serve as a love interest or be revealed as one of the hospital's spirits." Same as above.
  • "Media outlets found the pairing of Spelling and Frost producing a television show "strange"" - no need to put strange in quotes.
  • "It was one of three series UPN ordered as mid-season replacements during the 2000-2001 television season" - endash between 2000 and 2001, not hyphen.
  • Perhaps wiki-link hit-and-run.
  • "The John Doe is revealed to be the real" - "The John Doe"? Also, I never like the use of "reveal" in Wikipedia. It's so soap opera-esque. FrB.TG (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have addressed your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. These are my edits. Well done. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bcschneider53[edit]

Glad to see this here at the final step after I reviewed it at GAN. The prose is even better than it was last time I gave it a run-through, and the article is as comprehensive as it's going to get. I happily support this FA candidate. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support and kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

I found some time to look over this, so here are some comments. After they're fixed, I'm happy to support.

  • Media outlets found the pairing of Spelling and Frost producing a television show strange is a bit odd. I think it'd read better as Media outlets found pairing Spelling and Frost for the production strange (or similar)
  • the statistic that roughly 80,000 people die in hospitals every year due to unknown causes surprised him. → he was surprised that roughly 80,000 people die in hospitals every year due to unknown causes
  • All Souls was developed from the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom. Pardon my possible ignorance, but what does "developed" mean in this context? Does it mean it's based off The Kingdom or it's a spin-off (or neither)?
  • Revised, as they are separate entities. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frost had said that the show → Frost said the show

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I believe it passes already considering:

  • All sources are reliable.
  • Every reference is formated.
  • Archives are used for every url.
  • Every citation is wikilinked consistently.

If possible could you also do a source review in Flowerpiep's and mine FAC? Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the source review! Unfortunately, I do not believe that I am qualified to do a source review, and I would be more comfortable with a more experienced user doing it instead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Popcornduff[edit]

As it happens, I've seen The Kingdom, but never knew this show existed. A few general points:

  • "Media outlets found the partnership between Spelling and Frost surprising given their differing styles and approaches to television." This doesn't sound important and is kind of clunky; is it worth including in the lead?
  • You have a paragraph in the lead talking about where the concept of the show came from, but if it's based on an existing show, this is confusing. Can you clarify?
  • In the sources provided, they mention that the show was based on the miniseries. However, they mean "based on" as inspired by, not as in remaking or setting itself in the same universe as the other show. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Revolves around" is kind of a weird, clunky metaphor when you think about it. Prefer something simpler and direct if possible - "follows" is usually good.
  • Is "insane asylum" how such facilities are referred to today? Is this the correct term?
  • Changed to "psychiatric hospital". Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like some sentences to be simpler. For example "All Souls was canceled after the remaining four episodes were broadcast." sounds like a roundabout way of saying "All Souls was canceled after the season was broadcast." Is that correct?
  • It is somewhat the same meaning, but I honestly preferred my current wording as it emphasizes that the show was cancelled after the final four episodes were pretty much burned off. I have used your suggestion though. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be strict about every word you include. For example "Some spirits include..." can become "Spirits include"... without losing any information. Likewise, "which Frost said added a sense of realism to the series" can become "which Frost said added realism". These small things add up to make articles significantly more readable. I recommend reading every sentence and scrutinising every word - be strict with yourself.
  • Revised parts mentioned above, though I do think it is approaching on stylistic differences. While I understand and respect your preference for more concise language, I do not share that approach and do not see how the current way that I have worded the article is any worse. I do not necessarily agree going through the article for a style that I do not necessarily agree with or care about. Again, this is just my personal opinion and I do not mean to come across as disrespectful. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should care about writing concisely. This isn't really an issue of personal style, and we're not writing poetry here; the "Some" in "Some spirits include" adds absolutely no information to the sentence, and that's not really up for debate, as far as I can see. I won't support or oppose this nom - these are just suggestions - but those are my two cents. Perhaps other reviewers will agree or disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. To be completely honest, I do not plan on going through the article on this point, as I am happy with its current state. Again, I do not mean to be disrespectful or rude, but it is just a difference of opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the final paragraph of the "Development and casting" section as an example of how you can tighten up the prose by removing unnecessary words. I'm not necessarily saying my rewrite is the best possible version of the paragraph, and there might be things about it you don't like, in which case of course by all means revert. But I hope it demonstrates how there is fat to trim in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the revisions. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant[edit]

I'll take a look tonight. VedantTalk 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First set:

  • "All Souls suffered from low viewership, and was placed on hiatus following the broadcast of the fist two episodes." - first.
  • "It was originally paired with the reality television show Chains of Love." - I am not too sure if I know what paired with implies here.
  • "All Souls medical program" - is there a need to italicise here? I see an instance in the following sentences when you don't. I think that you don't have to italicise unless you're referring to the show, so make sure that you're consistent with that.
  • You could replace "Spelling and Frost" with "the duo" at the last instance in the opening paragraph of the production section.
  • Although I completely get how a show can be inspired by more than one preceding shows, it would help if you could expand on the what show really inspired what part of the series. That, if at all you can find in any sources.
  • That is a good point. Unfortunately, there is not much in the sources other than All Souls being inspired by these shows. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more information on the casting? Other than Rodriguez?
  • Unfortunately, I do not believe there is more information on the casting. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called the series "paranormal fun,[7] and Lawrence.com's " - missing closing quotes.
  • The opening paragraph of the critical reception section is a little disjointed IMO. It moves from the horror to the pilot to the actors, with direct quotes that might not be the most informative: "a classic Aaron Spelling production" (I don't know what that implies, as I am not familiar with Spelling's work and the quote does not necessarily mean a good or bad thing). You could move things around a little here maybe. The other two paragraphs read more seamlessly.
  • I have reorganized it to read a little more coherently. Let me know if more work is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this might as well be the standard practice (or so I've noticed), the episode-specific directors and writers are rarely referenced throughout the television-related artciles. Do you have that is so? I mean shouldn't they have a source too? Ideally?
  • To the best of my knowledge, these tables are normally not sourced, with the information cited back to the primary source (i.e. the episode). The only source that I could really add to this would be directly back to the episodes, which I can do, but I am not certain about the value of such additions. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could mention that Gillard directed a majority of the episodes in the production section.
  • Unfortunately, since there is not a source for this, I don't think it would work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in great shape other than my minor concerns. Fine work, as always. VedantTalk 19:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the review so far! I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything else can be done to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to have some sort of discussion on the viewership statistics of a show in either the broadcast or the reception section, buy I am guessing that would be difficult for a short-lived series. Other than that it is thorough and well written. I can support this for promotion. Good luck Aoba47. VedantTalk 12:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Status Update[edit]

  • @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received a fair amount of comments, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a fair bit of commentary and support but given the nom has barely been open a fortnight as of now, I think I'd like to give it a chance to garner further review before we look at closing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment from TheJoebro64[edit]

  • All Souls has received positive critical feedback—generalizations like these need direct references.

Otherwise, support. This is a well-written and engaging read (also a show I've never heard of). Great work! JOEBRO64 21:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jackdude101[edit]

@Aoba47: In the lead, I recommend removing the phrase "All Souls suffered from low viewership" and replacing it with the phrase "All Souls had low viewership". Using terms like "suffering" when discussing non-organic entities like TV shows doesn't look right. Other than that, the article looks great and I will happily support it once that change is made. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:40, 22 February 2018 (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_Souls_(TV_series)/archive1&oldid=827476424"