Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All things/archive1
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
all things[edit]
All things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is the seventeeth episode of seventh season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It is notably because it was written and directed by series co-star Gillian Anderson, but was also critically mauled. It was first promoted to good article status in April of 2012, and was later promoted to A-class status in September of the same year. The article has also changed substantially since it was promoted to good article in April of 2012. In addition, it has undergone two copy-edits: one by User:TBrandley in September of 2012, and another by User:JudyCS in January of 2014. I've also copy-edited while I've gone along, and the article was also unofficially peer-reviewed by User:Sarastro1. After a long trek up (about two years!), I think it is finally ready for FA review, but, as always, I am open to comments, criticism, and suggestion!.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the picture description, "These scene". Also, how does "but the two have developed a deep friendship" contrast or relate to being able "to debunk his work". Vctrbarbieri (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops! Minor typo. As for the "deep frienship" bit, that's just a line the project has added to a lot of the FAs and GAs, to basically condense the plot of the series into one line. Scully was originally antagonistic and dismissive of Mulder's work, but as the series went along, they became friends and confidants.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Crisco
After Waterston slips into a coma, Scully puts aside her skepticism and seeks out a medical alternative to save Waterston. - Not clear how "putting aside her skepticism" relates to medical alternatives.but she realizes she is no longer the same person she was those many years ago. - and thus rejects him, right?Should the flashback be in the present or past tense?Why are you citing a book in the plot section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]- It's just what the project has been doing for all the episodes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary, as episodes are considered cited to the actual episode (except where such episodes are lost, which happily is not an issue with The X-Files). I don't recall seeing this last time I reviewed an X-Files article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. It's been removed.
- It's not necessary, as episodes are considered cited to the actual episode (except where such episodes are lost, which happily is not an issue with The X-Files). I don't recall seeing this last time I reviewed an X-Files article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just what the project has been doing for all the episodes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we try and minimize the number of times "all things" appears at the beginning of a sentence? It's always driven me insane with iPod and iPad, and I feel it working on me here.- Scully as Waterston's former mistress. - didn't they still have sex, or what exactly was the affair?
- In the final cut, they had sex I believe. In the original script, they didn't.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The way it's phrased right now it sounds (to me, at least) like her as a mistress was cut. Perhaps rephrasing is necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the final cut, they had sex I believe. In the original script, they didn't.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
an episode of television before, - so what had she directed?I really don't agree with McKenna about the feminism aspect (under the rationale as you've put it, you could go for postmodernism as well). Does she give anything else to support her argument, other than the multiple realities?- She dedicates a whole book chapter on it, but honestly you're right that you could lump postmodernism in there as well (although you could argue that feminism is pretty postmodern to begin with). Anyway, I added the bit about male/female dualism to really cement that McKenna's talking about multiple realities as viewed by the female.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That works a bit better (as for feminism being inherently postmodern... depends whose theories you believe. The earliest feminists were still more structuralist IMHO) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point. I meant with their opinions on differing realities. I guess that might be a more 'modern' feminist approach, then?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-modern, but yeah. To be honest I'd be wary of applying a feminist label to this episode (a woman who is a skeptic and firm believer in rationalism [both the realm of men according to the traditional patriarchy] has to turn to mysticism, religion, and irrationality in order to save a man who used her as a sex object... one could describe it as the triumph of 19th century ideas of the feminine [women as emotional and irrational sex objects who are incomplete without a man {note that she ends up with Mulder even after rejecting Waterston}] over more modern ones), but that's very much OR. Oh well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what McKenna is trying to get as it that the feminist approach, in the episode, would be the fact that Scully is thinking outside the box, and not confining herself to any set philosophy, and definitely not one set in stone by gender roles. If you want to read the chapter, its available on GoogleBooks, but the pages have disappeared. Maybe you can sort some of this out.[2] I feel it might be a wee bit rough at the moment. The more and more I read the chapter, though, the more and more I think 'post-modern' would've been a better term to use. Also, as for your very good analysis of this episode, "all things" is notorious for being a cf of ideas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to read it, though the lost page numbers are nasty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... McKenna raises a decent point about the gender construction of knowledge (the sentence starting "Through most of the history of philosophy") and thus the hurdles Scully must overcome (and, although McKenna doesn't go into this, why Scully adapted traits traditionally considered "masculine" such as pants and short hair; think Hillary Clinton), but she doesn't actually expand on Scully's gender as part of recognizing a pluralistic epistemology in "all things". The "certain aspects of feminist philosophy" she is using appear to be those which are held in common with postmodernism in general. As it would be OR to call this post-modernism, since McKenna uses the term feminism, at the very least I'd link to Feminist epistemology instead of Feminist philosophy, as she's clearly focusing on epistemological elements in her analysis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to read it, though the lost page numbers are nasty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what McKenna is trying to get as it that the feminist approach, in the episode, would be the fact that Scully is thinking outside the box, and not confining herself to any set philosophy, and definitely not one set in stone by gender roles. If you want to read the chapter, its available on GoogleBooks, but the pages have disappeared. Maybe you can sort some of this out.[2] I feel it might be a wee bit rough at the moment. The more and more I read the chapter, though, the more and more I think 'post-modern' would've been a better term to use. Also, as for your very good analysis of this episode, "all things" is notorious for being a cf of ideas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-modern, but yeah. To be honest I'd be wary of applying a feminist label to this episode (a woman who is a skeptic and firm believer in rationalism [both the realm of men according to the traditional patriarchy] has to turn to mysticism, religion, and irrationality in order to save a man who used her as a sex object... one could describe it as the triumph of 19th century ideas of the feminine [women as emotional and irrational sex objects who are incomplete without a man {note that she ends up with Mulder even after rejecting Waterston}] over more modern ones), but that's very much OR. Oh well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point. I meant with their opinions on differing realities. I guess that might be a more 'modern' feminist approach, then?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That works a bit better (as for feminism being inherently postmodern... depends whose theories you believe. The earliest feminists were still more structuralist IMHO) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the change look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She dedicates a whole book chapter on it, but honestly you're right that you could lump postmodernism in there as well (although you could argue that feminism is pretty postmodern to begin with). Anyway, I added the bit about male/female dualism to really cement that McKenna's talking about multiple realities as viewed by the female.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone else discussed the episode?
- Maybe, but one thing I've been told in preview FA nominations is to cute down my amounts of reviews, since I shouldn't put *everything* people say into them. So I tried to make this succinct but engaging.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not refering to reviews, but McKenna. The Themes section is all her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, not really. :(--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even in the reviews? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I could pull in some stuff about the Buddhist featured in the episode. I'm not sure if there's a substantial bit other than Anderson wanting to incorporate Eastern religion into the episode, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to have a preview of what you can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I could pull in some stuff about the Buddhist featured in the episode. I'm not sure if there's a substantial bit other than Anderson wanting to incorporate Eastern religion into the episode, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even in the reviews? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, not really. :(--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VanDerWerff - is his proper name VanDerWerff or Van Der WerffCheck your punctuation. I'd generally put the commas outside of quotes (especially when you are giving an episode title) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it "heart chakra" in the plot but "heart chakra" later on? I'd just keep the first link targeted at anahata. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images... Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Sorry but after remaining open nearly six weeks and staying quiet for almost a month, this nom has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.