Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Firefly (TV series)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Firefly (TV series)[edit]

This article has had a peer review awhile back where we actively solicited feedback at WP:WAF and elsewhere for comments, etc. Since then we've worked on the suggestions and feel we're ready to see if it is ready to be FA. --plange 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Support - The only thing holding me back is that the DVD loo is still in the infobox.. I could not support unless it was the title screen, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a guideline or policy, or MoS thing on this? Or WikiProject TV style guide that states this? I confess I'm not aware of one (I don't edit popular culture stuff outside of Firefly), so if you could point me in the right direction I'd be extremely grateful. Thanks! --plange 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article could use some copy editing. There is a terribly long sentence in the "Geneis" section that is clunky and confusing (first sentence), and the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph could better be put into the first paragraph. There are also some lapses of style, such as this in the "Set design" section: They wanted to not only make it feel like they were really in a ship, but it also allowed the actors to stay in the moment and interact, without having to stop after each shot and reset up for the next shot.

I can't really make any more style comments, because I became so engrossed in the article I began reading it solely for pleasure...surely the mark of a very good article :) Jeffpw 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments (and am glad you're enjoying it!). I've reworked the sections you talked about, in fact I completely rearranged things in set design even further than you suggested. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. I will do another copyedit too. Thanks! --plange 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support -The Set design section reads a lot better now. I really enjoyed this article. I have never heard of this show (it never came to Europe, apparently), but it not only explained it quite comprehensively, it made me want to buy it on DVD. Good interlinking, too. There were a few terms I didn't understand, but the links were there to explain. One little quibble: this sentence might still be made clearer: The general idea of the show came about when Whedon had finished reading The Killer Angels, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. He was struck with wanting to portray people who had fought on the losing side of a war and their experience as pioneers and immigrants on the fringe of civilization. As I interpret it, you're saying Whedon equates the Confederate soldiers with "pioneers and immigrants on the fringe of civilization". If that's what he said/meant, ok. I just never thought of them like that. Jeffpw 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shiny! It's hard when you know something so well whether or not it was covered well for someone completely unfamiliar with it. On the last, yep, I better work on that more, because what he meant was the Confederates after the war. They lost and many headed west and lived on the fringe of civilization in the Old West. It did have some showings in Europe, but I don't know how universal it was (see List_of_Firefly_episodes#International). --plange 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sentence looks great now! Absolutely unambiguous. By the way, I checked and Firefly did not show in the Netherlands :-(. Thank God for multi-region DVD players. Jeffpw 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Overall a very nice article. There were a few nit-picking issues that caught my eye: Support
    • pioneer/frontier, Firefly/Serenity, and/or -- please re-write so there is no slash. It looks unpolished.
    • "Another influence was a book he had read shortly after The Killer Angels"--Ambiguous sentence. Did he read another book shortly after reading The Killer Angels? If so what was it?
    • "both strength and motion and the word "firefly" had both" -- duplicate use of the word "both", and it needs a comma after "motion".
    • Is the word "docu" a typo? Or is that correct in the quotation? I'm assuming means "documentary". Maybe it should be written "docu[mentary]"?
    • "The Ballad of Serenity", -- trailing comma usually is inside the double-quotes.
    • "...soul of the ship: According to creator..." -- lower-case 'according' since it's a colon rather than a period.
    • "(training?)" is a terse speculation inserted in the midst of a sentence and needs to be written more clearly.
    • "...inability to gel..." --I believe this use of "gel" is slang.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the feedback! --plange 07:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would also like to see Tony's points addressed below, although "fully copy-edited throughout" seems a little extreme. Most of the article seems to be in a pretty good condition. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yep, I gave it several more run-throughs myself (the difference can be see here [1] and Tony emailed my some names of other copy-editors. I also bartered an exchange with User:Paxomen for the Buffy article, so that should be happening soon... --plange 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object unless fully copy-edited throughout. The lead is not promising:
    • "It presents an atypical science fiction narrative in that its naturalistic future setting is modeled after traditional Western movie motifs." "in that" is a bit awkward. Why not: "Its naturalistic future setting, modeled after traditional Western movie motifs, presents an atypical science fiction narrative." In any case, I'm unsure that a setting logically presents a narrative. A narrative is written in a setting, that happens to be suitable for that narrative.
    • "wound up on Serenity" is a little informal here. "for various reasons" adds nothing, and should be removed or those reasons specified.
    • "To add a twist, it is a future where the only two surviving superpowers are the United States and China (which formed the Alliance), so it is rife with cultural fusion." Why is this a twist? It's evolving already. Why, logically, does the existence of two superpowers result in "cultural fusion"?
    • "More people with greater technology". "Greater" is vague. More advanced? More of it?

And casting our eyes down further at random:

    • "The fact that it was also something insignificant that had a powerful name added to its allure." that ... that. And try to avoid "the fact that ...".
    • "greatly interested in"—unidiomatic. Perhaps "much interested".
    • Some of the paragraphs (e.g., last two under "Genesis") could be merged/rationalised. Tony 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the above points (I hope) and did some more copyediting, but will tackle again tomorrow. Can you recommend a good copyeditor for sci-fi genre articles? --plange 07:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Plange. Tony 13:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it several more run-throughs myself (the difference can be see here [2] and contacted some names of other copy-editors yoy gave me. I also bartered an exchange with User:Paxomen for the Buffy article, so that should be happening soon... --plange 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paxomen and Deckiller have now done copyedits - let me know if you think it's okay now, thanks! --plange 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great work. Appears to meet all FA criteria. -- Visviva 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Can't seem to find many faults, a very good read. (And the show is excellent too :) Abel29a 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object. All my concerns have now been addressed. While this article is solid overall, and the sections describing the production history of the show are quite thorough, I am suprised at the number of unequivocal support votes here, as the article has quite a few problems and several troublesome unsourced statements:
    • The themes section adds very little to the article, as it picks out three isolated comments that fail to elaborate on the wider themes of the show contrary to the section title.
    • The Episode and boradcast history section states that "Fans, self-named Browncoats, attributed the low ratings in part to actions of the FOX Network — most notably the fact that FOX had aired the episodes out of chronological order, making the plot much more difficult to follow." I myself concur with this, as Fox really did appear to do everything it could to kill the show, but fan opinion is not sourced opinion.
    • The Critical Review section is in no way a comprehensive look at the critical reception of the show, as very few important tv critics are included in the sources. Furthermore, the section merely gives a few specifics without giving a broader overview of the critical reception.
    • The fandom section is a real mess, with the statements "support for the show led to a release of the series on DVD in December of 2004" and "the strong sales of the DVDs have been largely attributed to word of mouth by Browncoats." completely unsourced and therefore quite dubious without more proof. Furthermore, while the statements "Ultimately enough interest was shown to convince Universal Studios to take on the production of the feature film, Serenity." and "Numerous early screenings were held for existing fans in an attempt to create a buzz and increase ticket sales when it was released widely." are both probably true, they are also unsourced.
    • The Popular reception and cult status section is misnamed, as it primarily refers to the latter rather than the former, as the section is all about how awesome people think the show was, which was certainly not the popular reception since it was a ratings bomb.
    • The header for the article contains the statement that Firefly had "unprecedented fan support campaigns" after its cancellation. This statement is unsourced and suspect. It would probably be better to refer to a "strong" campaign rather than an "unprecedented" one. Indrian 07:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, I'll address these below:
    • The themes section adds very little to the article, as it picks out three isolated comments that fail to elaborate on the wider themes of the show contrary to the section title.
      • I'll try to work on this, but it's hard without going into WP:OR territory.
        • I understand the difficulty here. If everything else gets cleared up besides this, I will grudgingly drop the point, but if it is impossible to create a good themes section without OR, then my preference would be that what little material is in here is integrated in another way and the themes section is dropped.
          • I dropped that section and integrated the pieces into areas where it made sense elsewhere. --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Critical Review section is in no way a comprehensive look at the critical reception of the show, as very few important tv critics are included in the sources. Furthermore, the section merely gives a few specifics without giving a broader overview of the critical reception.
      • Since I'm not normally an editor of pop culture stuff, I confess I'm ignorant on who should be included. Can you tell me who the important tv critics are? I'll then see if they covered it. I tried to find what I could, but relatively little reviews seemed to exist while the show was on the air -- I found the NYT one, and the others listed there, but I think that was it
        • I do not know who the big tv critics are either, but a comprehensive section should probably at least include references (don't need quotes) to the critics of the major papers such as the Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune. If anyone else can provide more enlightenment on this, that would be appreciated.
          • I found one for the Boston Globe and included it, the Washington Post, LA Times and Chicago Tribune I can't read as they require payment... --plange 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I think the article you hyperlinked below will be fine. It states the show received generally positive reviews, which is all I am really looking for. Put in a new opening sentence talking about how the show got good reviews in general with a cite to that article, and along with the specific quotes you have, this will satisfy this objection.
              • Oops, before I saw this, I found another from the San Francisco Chron that panned it, and so I added that too. It tied in nicely as a counter-balance to the Globe as they both were on the same day, and then leads into the next negative-but-give-it-a-chance one from Salon, etc. --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fandom section is a real mess, with the statements "support for the show led to a release of the series on DVD in December of 2004" and "the strong sales of the DVDs have been largely attributed to word of mouth by Browncoats." completely unsourced and therefore quite dubious without more proof. Furthermore, while the statements "Ultimately enough interest was shown to convince Universal Studios to take on the production of the feature film, Serenity." and "Numerous early screenings were held for existing fans in an attempt to create a buzz and increase ticket sales when it was released widely." are both probably true, they are also unsourced.
      • I sourced the last 2 and am sure I can source the first part, but it's at home, so will have to wait until tonight
        • Okay, sourced the first one, and wondering if you think that this article's statements can be a source for the second http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/DDGQJD4D2O1.DTL&hw=firefly&sn=001&sc=1000 --plange 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This certainly takes care of the first one no problem. As for the second one, I do not think it quite works. The sentence specifically says that strong sales have largely been attributed to word of mouth, but you have still not provided a source that attributes strong sales to word of mouth. Nothing wrong with leaving in the statement that fans helped sales by getting the word out. I am still not comfortable, however, with the proposition that this was the primary reason for the success unless it is conclusively stated somewhere.
            • I went ahead and took this out until I can find a source... --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Popular reception and cult status section is misnamed, as it primarily refers to the latter rather than the former, as the section is all about how awesome people think the show was, which was certainly not the popular reception since it was a ratings bomb.
      • I changed the section header.
    • The header for the article contains the statement that Firefly had "unprecedented fan support campaigns" after its cancellation. This statement is unsourced and suspect. It would probably be better to refer to a "strong" campaign rather than an "unprecedented" one.
      • I sourced it, let me know if you don't think that it was a valid statement to make. I included the quote in the footnote from the article.
The other parts I will address tonight (am at work right now)
        • I looked at your source and do not believe it is good enough. Wheedon was praising the fans for their spirited campaign and called Serenity the fans' movie in an unprecedented sense. First of all, this does not speak to the scope of the campaign itself, and second of all, I do not think Wheedon qualifies as an expert on fan campaigns in general. I still strongly believe this should be changed unless you find more sources.
          • Does this article help establish it? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/DDGQJD4D2O1.DTL&hw=firefly&sn=001&sc=1000 --plange 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no doubt this fan campaign was something special, I am just cautious about absolute terms. Call it strong, call it impressive, call it phenomenal, or any other adjective that implies something well above the norm and I think this article is more than enough to support the statement. It may even be unprecedented, but that word just worries me unless I see an article or two that uses that exact word. I hope you understand that this is not a dig at what I think is an amazing fan community.
              • Not taken that way at all :-) I really appreciate your feedback! I've changed it to impressive. --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --plange 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your welcome! The article really is good overall and I am confident that my objections can be addressed. Indrian 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay - I will work on this, I promise! I was heavily involved in the U.S. elections so was pretty busy this week and now, needless to say, am pretty wiped out :-) --plange 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly no need to apologize; we all have real lives. After this last round of exchanges I believe we are very close here. I look forward to your response. Indrian 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like I forgot to address the second one about fan's opinion about why it didn't succeed. I'll look for another source that says it didn't succeed... --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made a small change that I think is in line with the source provided and gets rid of the bit about the fan opinion which I believe fixes my problem while leaving the message intact. As far as I can tell, all my objections have now been met and I can support. I appreciate all your hard work. Indrian 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Support. The music section needs to be expanded beyond a few sentences. Other than that, the article looks great! The Wookieepedian 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hi Wookie, since you're one of our editors, can you be a buddy and help us out with that? Do you have Finding Serenity? There's an article in there that speaks more about the Music. I'm about to take a wikibreak for 4 days, so can't get to it just yet, thanks! --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded the music section. Let me know if this is now acceptable to you. --plange 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom. Whilst the comments made about the article are valid, I do believe that it meets the FA criteria. Barnas 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well-written, excellent article. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom. Qjuad 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice job! Meets all the criteria. No concerns over the music section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets FA criteria. Well done --Aude (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article that meets FA requirements. - Lex 05:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still a few prose issues; I'll try to resume copyediting tomorrow. — Deckiller 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Firefly_(TV_series)&oldid=1138460784"