Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buffy the Vampire Slayer[edit]

The old nomination was ridiculously long (old nom) and I had trouble parsing it. It also seemed to touch on a number of issues that don't appear to be problems anymore. Restarting the nomination. Raul654 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I reiterate my support. All my concerns have been addressed, this article is well-written, well organized, and well referenced. Riverbend 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that minor copyedits are still needed, but they appear to be ongoing and the text is in very good shape. Riverbend 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, Image:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast2.jpg includes James Marsters in the group photo. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, I was the one to raise the fair use image's questions and, after a big cleanup, I retracted my opposition. My judgment was based on the assumption that this image was depicting a fictional building (i.e., little chance for someone taking a picture of it and reelase it) and that its presence was important to the article (which I can't judge because I do not watch the series). If this image is being used sollely as word-illustration or if it is possible for someone to produce a free alternative, the image should go away (note that, even if there's not a free alternative available, but there's nothing that makes one impossible, the fair use claim is invalid per #1 on WP:FUC. Unfree images must be unrepeatable (as the logo, for instance). ). --Abu Badali 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have just attempted yet another reform to improve the article's use of images, there are only six images left (more than 20 images were removed during the old nom)
  1. Left alone the logo from the title sequence.
  2. Used an image from early on in Buffy in the 'Origins'
  3. Moved the free photo of the actors to 'Casting' since the photo features the actors and not the characters. Garion96 are you sure this has Marsters in it, I can't see him?
  4. I have left the school one until it's decided what to do? We have to take into account however that taking a photo of the actual school (if anyone here even has access), means that it will no longer be the fictional setting Sunnydale High, and instead be the real-life Torrence High School - which IMO is not the same thing?
  5. Left alone the screenshot with format.
  6. Used a promo photo featuring the characters in the 'Characters' section.
I am willing to police the article (regularly checking and removing any further unneeded/unacceptable fair-use images) -- Paxomen 05:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture I linked to did, I changed it in the article. I don't know if the image is better but at least it has got Marsters in it. Garion96 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean, I think that's a good choice. -- Paxomen 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "promotional shots" are not promotional at all. Promotional shots come from presskits. Those, come from foxhome.com website, that scrtricle forbisds the resuse of it's contents. See Terms of Use. I'm readding my opposition until this is dealt with. Screenshots are a more safe image choiche for displaying the characters. --Abu Badali 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are promo images (used to promote Buffy DVDs), see below -- Paxomen 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Two images in the article (this and this) are tagged as promotional, but don't come from a source of promotional images (see above). --Abu Badali 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the fair use pages a number of times and have not read anywhere that the promo images have to come from a press kit. Surely any promotional images can be clasified as promotional? The tag says:
"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.
The images in question are used as advertising material (making them promotional) - they are being used by 20th Century Fox at http://www.foxhome.com/buffysplash/index_frames.html to advertise the Buffy Season 1 DVD-set and the Buffy Season 5 DVD-set. All fair use images are already copyrighted, but what makes them 'fair use' is the fact that despite whatever copyright restrictions might be on them they can be fairly used. There are no free alternatives to these images, and I feel they are important to the article.--Paxomen 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)-- Paxomen 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear ;o) — OwenBlacker 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this sounds subtle, but these images have not "been released by a company to promote their product in the media". They are being used by the copyright holder to advertise their product. Images released to promote a product are ones that come in press kits or similar sources, that are meant to be used by the media. There's no reason to believe these images were intended to be used by anyone other than the copyright holder itself. If you want to use these copyrighted image under fair use, the {{promo}} tag is not the way to do it.
As a sidenote, the "product in question" is the dvd-box, not the characters. So, even if these images were release to be used by the media, its current use on the article would still not be ok with the {{promo}} tag.
Depends how you interpret "released by a company to promote their product in the media". IMO they have been released on the world wide web and released to the eyes of the looking public. It doesn't matter whether Fox have copyrighted them, or how Fox intended the images to be used, the point of Fair Use, is that they still be fairly used if appropiate if not being done for profit (and obviously no profit is being made from the use of these 2 promo images).
Re: Sidenote: The tag does not just say "product in question". In full it says "to illustrate the work or product in question". On the Buffy article the images are illustrating the "work" involved in the creation of the DVDs (and therefore the creation of the series) which includes the creation of the fictional characters. The fictional characters are a key component of the DVD contents, without the fictional characters there would be no DVDs. -- Paxomen 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Compared to the overall body of prose, the citations are excessive (especially as they aren't even an FA requirement). This topic does not merit 91 citations as just a few facts are of such a nature. The prose hits me like the article is barely 32kb, and then I see the citations making it 70kb. I suggest you reduce citations as far as possible (though carefully) and bring 70kb as close to 45-50kb as possible. Also, no need to subdivide "Cultural impact" into so many sections. Rama's arrow 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text itself is 36kb, and over 5800 words not including 'Contents' and 'Footnotes' sections, and not including images or any other wiki-language. This means there is an average of one footnote for roughly every 64 words of prose.
Removing any of the citations means that readers cannot easily verify information they are being told, and for all they know it could just be being made up from the heads of Wikipedians. The footnotes are not a significant obstacle to reading the article (especially since the numbers are of a smaller size than the text), those who have no interest in verifying the information they are reading can just ignore them and read the article.
Many featured pages may not have as many as one footnote per 64 words, but IMO that does not mean that there is anything wrong with a strongly backed article. -- Paxomen 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would make the same argument as you in many cases. There's nothing "wrong" with the article. But the citations alone double the size of the article. Not having citations doesn't make facts unverifiable or wrong, which is why inline citations are not required. I just think you've put in too much, which is just a little less bad than putting in too little - a balanced article is what I think this should be. Cheers, Rama's arrow 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the size is an issue? That there is too much data taking into account the wiki-language? I read a while back that it was better to not get too big because some browsers can't deal with it. But that does not seem to be a problem anymore. Check out Wikipedia:Article size. I just read it, and it currently says that:
"In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32KB. With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32KB of total text." Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long."
"For stylistic purposes, only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose. Even so, an edit warning is displayed when a page exceeds 32 KB of text in total, to act as a reminder that the page may be starting to get too long"
-- Paxomen 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a subject that generates many different opinions and in an article that makes so many statements, I feel this article should have many citations. I do think that some of the citations are too verbiose, but I don't think there are too many of them. Xiner 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a general feeling that 91 cites would be ok in this case, dat's fine. I am concerned about this element of "overciting," which goes on to create a size problem. But its not something which would cause me to oppose this nom. Its a very good article - good work on the image rationales. Rama's arrow 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the number of citations are appropriate - leaving unsourced assertions is much worse than being overly careful. I am impressed with the careful work that has been done on researching this page, and strongly believe that the citatitons add to the verifiability (?) and worth of this article. If Wikipedia doesn't mind the extra size of citations, there is no reason to make this a less-well-researched article. Riverbend 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They just don't strike me as an excessive number of cites, maybe it is because I am used to working on law review articles, which are way more citation-heavy than this article. In my experience, each assertion in an article should be followed by at least one citation, which generally means at least one footnote per sentence. These citations seem adequate, not excessive.Riverbend 20:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look over the whole article and determine support or oppose, but I would like to comment on this matter of citing sources. Not only is citing one's sources one of the FA requirements, but it's a requirement of every article according to Wikipedia policy. There's absolutely no reason — article size or anything else — to ever remove valid citations. Ryu Kaze 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As before, well written and displayed article. I feel the use of images was well justified. Jacobshaven3 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reiterate my opinion on this article. A great work that deserves to be featured. Thanks for letting me know about this. --Gustave - May I help you? 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom --andrewI20Talk 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom — OwenBlacker 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent article deserving of acknowledgement by the Wikipedia community. --ScienceApologist 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article. --Carioca 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 91 citations is fine (even great) for an article with almost 6000 words, and all images have detailed and justified fair use rationales. -- Buffyverse 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Oppose. For the following reasons:
    • The article (Broadcasting section) does not discuss how or why the show ended (cancelled, mutual decision?)
    • Some weak sources, especially for "Impact on television". A lot ("second 'Most Influential SciFi Shows of the ’90s'", "Without [Buffy], we wouldn’t have Charmed or Smallville") is referenced via BellaOnline.com which doesn't appear to be a reliable source.
    • The existence of the term "Buffyverse" is cited via a Google search, probably not acceptable per WP:RS
    • The first sentence in "Awards and nominations" is "Buffy has received awards and nominations." This is awkward and extremely redundant.
    • The article uses three columns for "Footnotes and references". While I have no problem reading them using a 1680 resolution, I would imagine they look pretty strange for people with lower resolutions. -- EnemyOfTheState 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I made edits suggested above.
Broadcasting: Introduced some new text outlining the end of the series.
"The seventh and final season was originally broadcast on UPN during 2002-2003. Sarah Michelle Gellar explained to Entertainment Weekly why she decided not to sign on for an eighth season, "[When] we started to have such a strong year this year, I thought: 'This is how I want to go out, on top, at our best."[1]"
That's what I was looking for, thanks. Though one more sentence like "The network decided not to continue the series without Gellar" might still be a good idea, especially if there was such speculation at the time. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google: I changed the text to:
"This expansion of the series encouraged online fan-use of the term 'Buffyverse' to describe the fictional universe in which Buffy and related stories take place.[2]"
I know that normally Google would not be used in a reference, but it is not being used to make a controversial statement, "Buffyverse" is widely used online, if we remove the Google reference, is it any better to simply include some examples of web sites at which it is used?
Why not use the tenth hit or so, a CNN story [1]? That would be a much better source. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bella: I removed the Bella reference in the opening a while back, but feel that it still deserves to be mentioned in the influences section: Although Bellaonline is not hugely famous relative to a site like IMDB.. it does have fairly high traffic. It got 2485 unique hits from a sample of 365422 monitored AOL users in a three month period, therefore appeared on a list of high traffic web sites.[2] If the AOL sample is represenative of American internet users, then during a three month period roughly 0.7% of the internet population visits the site. Therefore it probably has a coverage comparable to some published magazines. It also has over [one million google hits [3], and you can read more about it here. I can remove it if people think that's what needs to be done?
My main concern is neutrality, rather than notability. While I'm not familiar with the site, it seems to be a women's (feminist?) website, therefore they might have an agenda to exaggerate the influnce of the series. If the show was as influential as described, I'm sure there are some comparable statements in publications like Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, etc. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References columns: Think I've solved this but not sure? The references seem fine on my screen.
Using two columns would have been fine with me, but if you prefer this, it's alright as well. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Paxomen 03:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google - Removed the google reference, and replaced it with the CNN ref you suggested.
Bella - Also removed the Bella reference , and also balanced the section out by adding some of the negative publicity about the influence of the show:
"Commentators of the entertainment industry including All Movie Guide, Hollywood Reporter and the Washington Post have cited Buffy as "influential"... The Parents Television Council was not impressed with the series, for its efforts to "deluge their young viewing audiences with adult themes".[3] Some Christians also worried about the series positive portrayal of witchcraft.[4]"
Added some more text to broadcasting:
"Whedon and UPN gave some considerations to production of a spin-off series that would not require Gellar, this included a possible Faith series, but nothing became of those plans. (Haberman, Lia, "A Buffy-less "Buffy"? Have Faith", E! Online (Feb 11, 2003))
The spin-offs are discussed in more detail in the article, lower down, see Undeveloped spinoffs - Paxomen 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Paxomen 13:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few more quick thoughts (these are no points of objection, rather questions or suggestions). Wouldn't it be more logical to list "Setting and filming locations" and "Inspirations and metaphors" in the production section, rahter than in Storylines? Also, I would consider putting the awards section either in "Cultural impact" or at least above the DVD releases; that way the prose wouldn't be disrupted by the DVD table. And one last thing, it is probably worth mentioning that the series was among TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time, ranking at No. 41. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO 'Inspirations' could fit into 'Productions' or 'Storylines', but the "Metaphors" half of that subsection is more comfortable in 'Storylines'.
Renamed 'Storylines' to 'Setting and storylines' to try and prevent 'Productions' becoming overly large, and also because the 'Setting' subsection greatly aids the understanding of all of the other 'Storyline' subsections.
Moved the 'Awards' section above the DVD section, since removing 'awards' from 'Series information', would leave a whole section with only one subsection.
Nice find on the TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. I added a mention in the opening.
-- Paxomen 12:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I still think the fair use claim on the school picture is weak. See [4]. Garion96 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Wookieepedian 07:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well-written article. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article. -- Vision Thing -- 15:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written article, has a lot of info. Overall worthy. --llycatA (alkT - ontribsC)
  • Object—1a. There's a lot of good in this article, so why not polish it?
    • "the latest in a line of young women chosen to battle against vampires,...". Who chose her? Remove "against"?
    • "Buffy is aided by a Watcher who guides and trains her." I have a feeling that your intended meaning requires a comma after "Watcher".
    • I don't usually comment on the absence of commas (often it's a matter of personal style), but there are instances in this article where they're required. For example: "Several years later, Gail Berman, a Sandollar Productions executive approached Joss Whedon". (After "executive".) And before "which": "The writer wrote a full script which went through a quick rewrite from the show runner."?
  • Support The article is quite OK. Text might get better, but almost all the possible improvements are a matter of taste, and not of actual litterary compliance to standards.

And there's more. Can you find a word-nerd who's interested in the topic and is unfamiliar with the text? Search for good copy-editors of similar FAs. Collaboration is important, and fun. Tony 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly valid points, but I think compared to that English Premier League article featured a few days ago, this shines. It could use polish, but I feel certain recent featured articles have been worse. This isn't an argument for the nomination, just an observation. Xiner 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, comparing a current FA with substandard articles that have been let through in the past is utterly irrelevant. The criteria and the standards of writing have risen, thankfully. Who is going to bring this one up to the required "professional" standard of writing? Tony 01:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing... The word nerd. Buffy is my favorite series ever (before Lost, 6fu, SITC and the Sopranos), and I never even read the article. I guess I fit the job. I'll have a look and post results around.--SidiLemine 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Ranting[edit]

Please mind that this is not opposing the nom, just advising possible ways to improve the prose. I'm sorry I wasn't there for all the peer reviews, etc., but I'm still pretty new on Wiki. This is actually my first FACR.--SidiLemine 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few things from first look:

In Origins: Several years later - how many?
The four last sentences of the Origins section can be coupled two by two. did tihs myself. Gee, editing an article that well referenced is tiring for the eyes.
Done the same to beginning of Exec Prods.
The same can be done in Writing. Longer sentences make the article flow more easily. In the second part of the article, the tense isn't right. This should all be "the episode would be broken" and "the credited author would write". The whiteboard can stay the same, as it was probably always there. But the past tense in this part makes it look like it was ritual, almost mechanical, and systematic, which doesn't exist in production.
Last sentence of "Casting" needs a citation, or must leave.
Colon, not comma, before SMG's citation in "Broadcasting".

I have to leave, will finish tomorrow. --SidiLemine 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be useful to mention somewhere that the "Scoobies" take their name from Scooby-Doo. Lead: "The latest in a line" is better with "one in a line", as in Characters. Broadcasting: ...possible spinoff (...) including a possible... Opening seq: "The sequence, with this music heard over images of a young cast involved in the action and turbulence of adolescence, provides a post-modern twist on the horror genre. (I don't think it bends the meaning too much). Music: Nothing to do with wording, but didn't K's choice perform (or was announced) at the bronze at some point? setting & filming locations: Is there any other nightclub than the bronze in sunnydale? If not it should be the local nightclub. Also, the phrase about the house makes it seem that they all come to live together, and never one by one. Format: self-contained story which in Buffy (italics). Are the vampires in Buffy actually "based on traditional myths, lore, and literary conventions"? Ritterary convetions mayhe, but certainly not traditional ones. They're probably the first vampires I saw that learnt martial arts when digging out. "They frequently save the world"... If I remember well there's a limited number of apocalipses (or whatever plural that gets). Two? Three? I think it would be better to mention it. Plot: I love "He once more becomes a sadistic killer seeking to destroy the world". So buffy-like. "Buffy returns from Heaven" could possibly made stronger (is torn from, is taken out of....) "and Willow becomes addicted to magic. When Willow's girlfriend is killed by a deranged murderer, Willow descends into darkness and begins a rampage." could be "and Willow becomes addicted to magic. When her's girlfriend is killed by a deranged murderer, she descends into darkness and begins a rampage." I'd also put something, even if not specific, about love and sacrifice in the last episode, to sy that they didn't defeat all the evil and vampires in the world with a bunch of 15yo girls and Willow's magic. Main Characters: Maybe the Watcher's Council's job could be made a responsibility.;) Same, Giles offers advice on how to defeat creatures. "Willow is originally a bookish wallflower who provides ...". Last sentence: 144 episodes, minus one for Xander.) Supporting: "with Riley Finn (Marc Blucas), who is initially an operative in a military ": if you're not detailing the aftermath, you might as well take out the "who is initially" part. Also, if it's a military organisation, their technology probably is too. "For example the Big Bad characters were featured for at least one season (e.g., Glorificus was a character..." That's an example in an example. Take one out. Spinoffs: Chronology is already traced at Buffyverse Chronology, but can be found there.

That's it for today!! If no one feels like taking this down, I'll probably manage to get to it by the end of the week.--SidiLemine 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will always remember that Virgin State of Mind by K's Choice was performed in the episode Doppelgängland. A fantastic song fit for my favorite Buffy episode. Xiner 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Stake Out", Entertainment Weekly (26 February, 2003).
  2. ^ 'Buffyverse' Googled", Google (updated daily).
  3. ^ "The 2001-2002 Top 10 Best and Worst Shows on Network TV" & "TV Bloodbath: Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV" Parentstv.org (2002 & 2003 respectively).
  4. ^ Hadley, Phil, "Are Buffy and Sabrina Angels?", Jesus-is-savior.com (October 2000).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer&oldid=1144868427"