Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abyssinia, Henry

Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode)
Hello, I have been working on this article for some time, about a notable episode of the television show M*A*S*H, and I feel that it meets and exceeds the standards needed to become a FA. It was featured on Did You Know and achieved GA status about a month ago, and since then, it has received a successful Peer Review, and a run through a thorough copy-edit process. Since there have not been any television episode articles ever to pass FAC, I haven't had anything to base this article on, and I am more than willing to quickly address any concerns you may have that can prevent this from becoming a FA. I would like to just note though that due to fair use concerns, there is only one image in the article. I really appreciate your feedback; thank you very much! Self nomination.


 * Support, per nom. Hotstreets 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: if footnotes are references, than what is the single position in references? Further reading? That's somewhat confusing. 272 is the page number?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed this portion of the article as I agree that section has become redundant.Hotstreets 08:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * neutral Support I've made a small edit to the lead as "and the 24th and" seems really clumsy wording and the major point episode 72, final series 3 are the important summarised information. Additionally I find the last sentence of the lead The combined departures and subsequent replacements of two of the series' biggest stars also signaled the beginning of major changes in the overall focus of the M*A*S*H series. heavy to read suggest something like These combined departures and subsequent replacements was the beginning of a change in focus for the M*A*S*H series. Besides this there wasn't any other issues with the prose that I noticed. Also I like the one image as its the most memoriable images from that episode to included Henry. Gnangarra 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: Thank you for the suggestions; I have taken them and reworded the last sentence of the lead to read, "These combined departures and their subsequent replacements also signaled the beginning of a major shift in focus of the M*A*S*H series as a whole." Is this a better solution, or is it still too clumsy? Hotstreets 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support: Looks great to me; best TV episode article I've read. My only big problem is that the Reception section sounds like it could use a few more cites, especially in regards to the fan responses. Other than that, get rid of the red link in the lead, and Radar's line in that quote box kinda stops the flow of the article in its tracks.--Dark Kubrick 18:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response:: I have gotten rid of said red link in the lead section, and have found another couple of sources for the reception. I will spend some time tonight to work them into the article. Thanks! Hotstreets 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also forgot to add that I just have gotten rid of the quote box, and replaced it with a simple tag. Hotstreets 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added citations to the Reaction section; while I would like to add some more information to the article itself based on this new source, I would like to keep the article stable until it passes or fails FAC. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks! Hotstreets 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why wait? Add the new information now, so that its addition to the article can be assessed as well. Also, the reception section still feels just a little bit undercited. The line that really sticks out is: "Many of those who objected also cited the fact that M*A*S*H was a situation comedy, and that Blake's "cheap" killing did not belong in the show."--Dark Kubrick 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I have added the information, which serves to clarify that statement you mentioned. The additions also entail two individual reactions to the airing that Reynolds received. I think this should address your concerns, but please let me know if I should still be making changes. Thanks Hotstreets 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, everything's cool now. I support.--Dark Kubrick 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced, organized, all-out put together, TV-episode article. Hello32020 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very well written and well referenced. As a sidenote, this article would be quite suitable should it end up being the first television episode featured article; I don't believe the previous attempts at this article type were successful. Jay32183 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I like the use of quotes to break up the text instead of photos - good compromise! Well written and sourced. Shell babelfish 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good job! Quick comment: I would recommend rewording of the last sentence in order to rid of the dreaded "it should be noted" phrase. Gzkn 09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Small quibble comments:
 * Does the plot spoiler include Reaction and Impact section ? (And perhaps also the Final O.R. stage subsection?)
 * The last sentence in the Final O.R. stage subsection is an orphan paragraph and it seems that it is not part of the subsection.
 * I don't understand the sentence: "Abyssinia, Henry is the highest rated episodes of M*A*S*H, .... (behind only the series finale, "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen")....", but both episodes are from the same series, right? So is the "Abyssinia, Henry" the highest or the second highest?
 * At the 3rd paragraph of the Aftermath section, the editor uses future in the past tense grammar, which seems the information was still a plan. Was the fourth session only a plan?
 * Some minor prose: remove "In addition" because it is always an addition and "It should be noted that ...." is a weasel word.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I have made the changes that you have suggested, clarifying the text and changing tenses where needed. I hope that I have addressed your concerns, please let me know if I haven't done so completely yet. The plot spoiler issue was one that came up during PR, but I chose to leave it as is, and wrote it as is for the reason that, in this case, it is nearly impossible to judge the impact and analyze the contents of the episode without revealing the major plot point, which, of course, is Henry Blake's death. For those that would like to learn more about the episode, but not learn about the death of Henry Blake, I think this is the best solution. However, if you still feel otherwise, I might still be open to changing it; however, there would have to be some significant reworking of those affected sections to eliminate plot points. Once again, thank you very much! Hotstreets 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is better now, but I can't support right now until Andrew's comment below has been addressed. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose, IMDB trivia is not a reliable source. Andrew Levine 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I have gone through each citation that uses IMDB trivia, and either switched it to a new citation of a different source, or added a second citation. Please let me know if I've satisfied your concerns. Hotstreets 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Surprising impressive episode article. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article looks good, but I see two problems. First, the music of the episode isn't mentioned at all. Was there no music used, or if there was music, what songs were played or who wrote the musical score? And second, more importantly, the development and production of the episode isn't discussed. Things like how did the story evolve, how did the writers approach the plot, who wrote the teleplay, who was the director of photography, etc. Every good movie page has a "production" section, and I think if a TV episode article wants to be a FA, then there should be one as well. I can see how it could be more difficult to find information on the development of a specific TV episode than a movie, but normally with popular shows like MASH, the studio has several official books published, therefore I don't believe it would be impossible to find information on the production process of this episode. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: Well, by production, do you just mean the order in which it was filmed, or something else? I'm a little confused. In terms of music used, just the common stingers and show themes were used, no special music. There is already some production information included, most specifically about the final OR scene, but I'm not sure I can find enough for a full production section. I will try my best to find additional info as soon as possible. Is there some example you can point me to that I can possibly base this on? Thanks, Hotstreets 07:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't really give you an example, since there is no FA for a TV episode yet. By production, I basically mean everything that went on between when the first idea for this episode emerged and the final cut was approved. Interesting could be discussions in the writers room, thoughts of the executive producers and cast, possible re-writes or changes in post-production or technical details (like MASH was shot on film, not video, like most half hour shows of that time). I don't want to be too specific, since I don't know what information is actually accessible. The final scene section already offers a behind the scenes look, but it would be nice, if this could be done for the entire episode. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Good storytelling, extensive research for the reactions, and I like the block quotes on the side.  Overall, a well-polished article.  I guess it was only a matter of time before a singular episode of a TV series hit FA status; hopefully this one will lay the blueprint for all others. Anthony Hit me up... 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and other comments. --  Wikipedical 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)