Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 01:18, 16 July 2011 [1].

---

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/archive1

Nominator(s): Boycool (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article in honor of the series renewal, which many predicted would not happen due to declining viewership. This article is well-written and comprehensive, and I think it meets the criteria. Boycool (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I found this article almost completely incomprehensible. What's the "Norseman" for instance? Apart from that, the prose needs a lot of work. A few specific examples:

• "Hartley administers an antidote to the Norseman's effects, but it only slows Sarah's condition." How do you slow a condition?

• • Fixed.

• "Mary then remembers that Volkoff had developed a stronger antidote, but it is stored at the Volkoff Industries Headquarter in Moscow, Russia." Why is "headquarter" singular"?

• • Fixed.

• "As they leave the hospital, Chuck, Casey, Mary and Hartley are captured by Decker and brought to Castle ...". Should be "taken to Castle", unless you're writing this in Castle.

• • Fixed.

• "The scene then cuts to Chuck and Sarah's wedding". Scenes don't cut.

• • Fixed.

• "... her father returns and reveals the truth that he went undercover voluntarily". Obviously there's some redundancy there, why not just "reveals that he went undercover voluntarily"?

• • Done.

• "Fedak stated in a later interview that the inspiration for Volkoff's true identity being a gun-shy British scientist was Dalton's portrayal of Gregory Tuttle ...". A later interview than what?

Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed.

Oppose - I agree that the article's prose needs improvement to meet FA standards. In addition, here are some further concerns:

• File:Chuckvsthecliffhanger.jpg - FUR needs to be considerably expanded. In particular, "to represent this article" is far too short and vague to properly describe the purpose of use
  • Done.
• Don't notate titles in all-caps
  • What are you referring to?
    • Ref 11. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Then how should I notate the title?
        • See below: the source is not needed. I've removed it.
• WP:OVERLINK - not necessary to link character names, for example, multiple times, as the article is quite short
  • Fixed.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
  • The first is reliable due to the writer's frequent (and recent) interviews with the cast and crew members. The second is reliable because, unlike other sources which copy one another, this writer was actually present at an interview with the series co-creator. I've removed the third because it's questionable at best and not needed.
• Very long quotes should be formatted as blockquotes
  • Which quotes are you referring to?
    • For example, the McGee quote in the last paragraph of Reception. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Like this?
        • No, like this. {{Cquote}} is only for pullout quotes. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Spotcheck of one source: "several clips of their budding romance" in article vs "all the clips of their budding romance" in source; ""Here With Me" by Battleme when Chuck and Sarah have wedding jitters" in article vs ""Here With Me" by Battleme (Chuck and Sarah have wedding jitters)" in source - close paraphrasing, check for others. Also, "United Federation of Planets" in article vs "Intergalactic Federation of Planets" in source - inconsistent. If you have a reason to disregard the source on that issue, either use a different source or note the discrepancy. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Would it suffice to just omit "several" and have "clips of their budding romance"? I'm not sure what you're saying about the Battleme thing. --Boycool (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Unlike other episodes, the music is really not a notable aspect of this episode. Perhaps it could be put in the "music = " parameter of the infobox. --Boycool (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sorry, but the Plot section as presently written is incoherent. This is the first sentence:-

To make Chuck Bartowski (Zachary Levi) suffer for supposedly forcing her father to upload the government computer, the Intersect, accidentally overwriting his personality with that of his cover identity, arms dealer Alexei Volkoff (Timothy Dalton), Vivian Volkoff (Lauren Cohan) targets Chuck's fiancée Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski) with the Volkoff Industries "Norseman" weapon.

I'm afraid this lost me completely. Because of the tortuous prose construction it's hard to work out who "her" in the first line refers to, or which person is meant by "his" a little later. The sentence is far too long, with too many sub-clauses, and is made worse by your insistence on naming the actors as well as the characters – it is not necessary to identify the actors in a Plot section. You need to say who "Chuck Bartowski" is; people unfamiliar with this series (as far as I know it's never been aired in the UK) won't have any idea who or what he is - CIA agent? private investigator, undercover operator etc? What is meant by "overwriting his personality"? By "target" do you mean "attack"? The rest of the section is also largely incomprehensible; a plot section has to make reasonable sense to everyone, not just to the fans of the series who know what's going on. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Give her another look. I've largely rewritten the plot summary for clarity and "flow", but one can only expand the plot so much before it goes way over the word limit. The episode was a season finale and potential series finale, and, as the article states, a "tying together of everything the character and the show have been about". --Boycool (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the FAC instructions and do not add templates; also, please sign your entries, we need to know "done" according to whom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.