Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nightswimming (Awake)/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 promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [1].

Nightswimming (Awake)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Nightswimming (Awake)/archive1

Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), Nikkimaria (talk), TBran dl ey 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful FA nomination of "Say Hello to My Little Friend", we present, "Nightswimming". This episode is regarded by many as one of the worst ever produced, and, per other critic reviews, perhaps, even the actual worst. "Nightswimming" recently underwent a peer review from ‎TRLIJC19, an A-class review from ‎TRLIJC19 and Grapple X, a thorough GA review, again, from ‎TRLIJC19; "Nightswimming" received two copy-edits, one of which was by Nikkimaria, and the other by Davejohnsan, both of which did great wonderful copy-edits which helped me be at FAC today. I feel that the article is truly comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, perhaps, the most for an Awake episode, and the page has topics on filming, filming locations, casting, writing, credits, for the production section only, also containing themes, broadcast numbers, and the episode's critical response, followed by external links for the episode. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, with good non-free rationales, which I have expanded very much due to that. As was flagged in my other FAC nominations, reviews from the TV Fanatic and Den of Geek (not my FAC for that one) have had their notability questioned, but have been deemed reliable. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Hello to My Little Friend/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)/archive1 (Grapple X's separate nomination). Despite the bad storyline of parts/bits of the episode, this article, I hope is a good read for you. Thank you for taking a look at my article, I will for sure be able to addressed all issues. Cheers, TBran dl ey 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Support on prose and images. Looks fairly solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a note that we have an article on Pain in My Heart, so that should probably be linked. Good work! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the album, not the song. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed it is! Disregard. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another FA-worthy article in the Awake series. Well done, TBrandley! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No apparent problem; it is a well-written article. --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Gen. Quon moved to talk

Support Looks good. My suggestions were rather not-needed, as all the issues seem to have been squared away. Good job here!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible work done from the Awake Wikiproject. Prose, referencing, images are are good; quality article. And I say this as someone who's never watched a single episode of the series. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A flawless article worth FA-status. -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I'm maybe a bit out of touch with the main TV critical sources, particularly as relating to US TV shows, so I looked at a couple. Screen Rant says on its "about" page that "reviews are written from the point of view of 'was it a fun/exciting/scary/compelling movie' instead of from some highbrow esoteric level that only other movie critics will relate to". That made me wonder a bit whether reviews from this source will have the required objectivity for encyclopedic neutrality? The other I investigated was TV Fanatic; I discovered this was part of Mediavine which resolved any doubts. I did a few spotchecks, no concerns there. Subject to any comment you might have about Screen Rant, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on its website, I do think Screen Rant is a good source. TV Fanatic is fine, as above. Cheers, TBran dl ey 23:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a slightly stronger rationale for the use of Screen Rant? Obviously you think it's a good source, but why should others share your view? No problem with TV Fanatic. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is operated/owned by Relativity Media. Itactually appears on Google News, if you search "Screen Rant" there, with their reviews being listed at Rotten Tomatoes. Per this, I still think is is a good source. Regards. TBran dl ey 00:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Brianboulton (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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