Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Awake (TV series)/archive2


 * 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 GrahamColm 16:01, 15 September 2012.

Awake (TV series)

 * Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), TBrandley 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after its previous failed nomination, we believe it's okay for FAC now. Awake is an American television police procedural supernatural drama that originally ran on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) for one season from March 1, 2012 to May 24, 2012. The show's concept has been considered too complex for American television. It has had extremely low ratings, but high reception since its original debut. Awake recently underwent a peer review, a copy-edit from Davejohnsan, and has already been promoted to GA status, earlier this year, in mid-June 2012. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, the "series overview" section is complete, and recently, the "Setting" section has been merged into that. The "Reception", "Distribution", and "Broadcast history" is filled with fully-referenced information, while, the "External links" area is filled with useful "External links". The article has many useful images, with "Alt" on the images. Prior to this nomination, these were the changes I made on the article for FA. My inpersation for this article was House (TV series) and Firefly (TV series). Thank you for looking at this and considering it. If there are any outstanding concerns, please write below. Thanks again! TBrandley 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: I gave this article an extensive review at its previous (suddenly failed) FAC, including a spotcheck of sources. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support An article which I believe was ready even at the time of the end of the first FAC. A FA, indeed. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A solid article that deserves the featured article status :) Sofffie7 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review:
 * File:Kyle Killen by Gage Skidmore1.jpg is fine
 * File:Howard Gordon by Gage Skidmore.jpg is fine
 * File:Jason Isaacs by Gage Skidmore.jpg is fine
 * File:Awake Logo.png is possibly not PD-simple owing to the colouring and split E. A Fair-Use rationale would be safest. Is the controversy over this logo finished yet?
 * Done. TBrandley 01:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:David Slade 001.jpg is possibly a copyvio (web resolution, no EXIF data) and I've nominated for deletion. Anything safer?
 * Done. TBrandley 01:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:JasonIsaacsMarch09.jpg is fine
 * Quick prose comment: Last paragraph of #Production team is a mess, any way to combine these references into one? See Citation overkill.
 * Not done; not really. There are all separate different references. TBrandley 01:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use something like
 * so that it shows up as a single footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See my example at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to ask, but, could you do it? It keeps getting messed up every time I try. Thanks, TBrandley 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the citewebs within the group ref you created, are repeated later in the article. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest perhaps keeping them separate (one named reference for the later, single uses, and a group reference for the two sentences in question. Having a ref after every name is hard on readers and editors, so I don't think there's a problem with duplicating the citation templates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! I've replied to your concerns above. Cheers, TBrandley 01:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
 * Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Ruby2010
 * Lead: the link to Pilot (Awake) should be used when you first mention the "first episode".
 * Done. TBrandley 20:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead: the mention of critical commentary becomes a little repetitive and redundant (you say "critical success" and then soon after note the positive reviews the series received). I would either trim this or at least rewrite/reword
 * Done. TBrandley 20:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is sort of implied, but it would be better if you make it clear that it was canceled due to its low ratings
 * Done. TBrandley 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "...show, and has been nominated for five awards." - split into another sentence
 * Done. TBrandley 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the program, that was described as a procedural mixture that is based on the life of a detective experiencing a parallel universe after a car accident with his family" - I don't like how this is phrased. Perhaps change to "Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the program, which has been described as a police procedural about the life of a detective experiencing a parallel universe after a car accident with his family".
 * Done. TBrandley 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Those two block quotes in the conception section are a little excessive. I would recommend phrasing at least some of it into your own words
 * I just removed the quote itself. So, done, I guess. TBrandley 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also in the conception section, I don't like how everything is mashed up together (quote box, image, infobox). Can you move the image or quote box lower?
 * Done. Moved image further down to writing. TBrandley 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are redundant to use one after another: "further elaborated on the conception of the series:" and "Kyle Killen sought inspiration from the dreaming process."
 * Done. TBrandley 20:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikilink first mention of NBC
 * Done. TBrandley 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why was Kevin Reilly apprehensive?
 * Done. TBrandley 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your change just made it more confusing. Why did Reilly reject the script if he enjoyed reading it?  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. TBrandley 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Casting: Wikilink first mention of Jason Isaacs
 * Done. TBrandley 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hannah's casting seems out of order; it would make more sense if you mentioned that Michaela McManus was first cast, and then added in Laura Allen. There's also a repetition of "received" that hurts my eyes
 * Done. TBrandley 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've only read through the production section so far, but the content seems solid. Mainly just minor prose and linking issues that I've listed above.  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! I addressed/replied to all of them above. Hope you can support or leave further comments. Cheers, TBrandley 21:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Ruby  2010/  2013  02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More
 * "His therapists insist that he is "making of all this up", and that he is helping himself "cope" with the pain" - typo?
 * Done. TBrandley 02:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Series overview section uses the "accident" a lot; is there another word you can sometimes substitute in?
 * Done. TBrandley 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of uses of "however" that are a bit irksome
 * Done. TBrandley 14:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, Ed asks for protection then he will tell him, but, then attacks Michael while he is distracted." - too many commas
 * Done. TBrandley 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Michael later finds out that Carl is involved in the setup. Finally, Michael finds evidence that Tricia is also in on the setup." - these two sentences can be merged and removed of redundant wording
 * Done. TBrandley 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Series overview: You should mention which of the events occurred in the finale, to make Killen's comments in the following paragraph more clear
 * Done. TBrandley 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Series overview: "In response to viewer speculation on the meaning of the finale, Killen said that he has seen intersecting theories, stating that no one is wrong, expect for people who called Awake's finale a Dallas or a Newhart." - Huh? Very poorly written
 * Done. TBrandley 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Series overview: In fact, the first couple sentences of that paragraph could use a copy edit
 * Done. TBrandley 00:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote marks around the red and green realities aren't really necessary after you first establish what each one is.
 * Yeah, they are. Its there in every Awake-related article, including Say Hello to My Little Friend, an FA
 * Where does David Hinckley's (New York Daily News) quote begin?
 * In critical response section. Last paragraph. ?
 * The storylines of the "red reality" in that episode were praised, while the storylines of the "green reality" in the entry were criticized, which were considered "boring". - needs a rewrite
 * Done. TBrandley 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Handlen thought that if the "red reality" storyline was not featured in this installment, it would not work as an episode" - This installment? I think these few sentences are meant to cover the last episode mentioned, but they are confusingly written
 * Done. TBrandley 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! Have addressed/replied to all of them. Cheers, TBrandley 00:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Reading through, I see no real issues at all. A great article, and one I have come to expect from these two nominators. Congratulations! --  Cassianto Talk   21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Frankly, I'm disappointed in the reviewing that has taken place up to this point. There are a bunch of one-line supports from TV article editors and a comment that someone sees "no real issues at all". I see a large number of issues in what I've read, from awkwardness in the writing to an overreliance on quotes to blatant grammar errors that should have been caught before this point. I really think this needs one more good copy-edit to merit the star. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 01:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Conception: "which was canceled shortly after airing two episodes due to low ratings." Since the show was canceled, but the network aired it, this is awkward. How about "which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings."
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: TBrandley, wasn't it cancelled before the final two episodes aired? Where's this "after" coming from? I don't remember seeing it during my read through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For Awake, yes. Giants is referring to Lone Star. "Killen previously created the American television drama Lone Star (2010) for the Fox network, which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings". Regards, TBrandley 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "which, after airing two episodes, was canceled due to low ratings"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. TBrandley 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not addressing the issue. It still implies that the show aired itself, not that a network aired it as the sentence should indicate. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but to avoid issues perhaps add "by the network" after "canceled". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that would be enough to fix the issue. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "In contrast, the other reality where his wife is alive, the 'red reality', the background is infused with a brighter, golden hue color." Needs "in" before "the other reality".
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Production team: In the last sentence, "Principal" shouldn't be capitalized.
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing: The first sentence of this section is a direct copy of what's in the lead. Personally, I feel the prose should look at least a little different from the lead to the body, and would hope to see some variety.
 * Done. TBrandley 02:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Something I'm noticing throughout is that the writing is literally laced with quotes. A few quotes here and there are desirable, but seven in a two-paragraph Writing section alone is a little hard to stomach. Surely we can use original writing for at least a few of them; otherwise, this looks like just a string of quotes, which I wouldn't expect to be featured. What must the critical reception section be like?
 * Done some. TBrandley 02:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Gordon asserted that the concept of Awake was understandable if you sat down and paid attention to it properly." By using "you" like this, the writing is sort of talking to the reader, which it shouldn't do. An easy fix is "if the viewer sat down...".
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Series overview: "After the crash, Michael is conflicted with two separate realities." Wouldn't "conflicted" make more sense as "confronted"?
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Main characters: "Michael has a routine to help him maintain the illusions of control." "illusions" → "illusion"?
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "in the 'green reality'. In the 'green reality'...". Don't like to see this kind of repetition from one sentence to another, especially for a whole phrase.
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Michael sees two separate therapists: Dr. Jonathan Lee, and Dr. Judith Evans, Dr. Lee claims that...". The comma after Evans' name should be a period instead. Surprised that such an issue made it past five supporters, who I assume read the article.
 * Good catch. Thanks! Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dr. Lee claims that Michael's two realities are a problems that are not there to help him". Clearly, the supporters didn't read this bit. I think this would work if "a" was removed.
 * Oops, another good catch. Done. Also, just a note, that was actually added after those people supported the article, I am horrible when it comes to prose. :0 Cheers, TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Directly after this is "while Dr. Evans states that it is 'remarkable'." Here, "it" is referring to the pair of realities, so this is actually a plural and should be "that they are 'remarkable'."
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "but the writers ultimately did not get to it due to other storylines." Get to what? Making a romance between the two part of the story?
 * Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not done: The sentence is worse now: "but the writers ultimately did not to that storyline to it due to other story arcs."--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comments above. How does it now look? May I ask if further comments are coming, despite your oppose? TBrandley 02:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Critical response: I've always heard from the real FAC prose gurus that "amongst" is awkward and that "among" is a better choice of wording.
 * "Fowler noted that Allen and Minnette's performances in the series deserve praise for playing characters who are dealing with loss". The performances didn't play the characters; the actors did. Needs rewording with that in mind.
 * "he described it as a show that will not fit into prime time television." Since the series has been canceled, shouldn't "will" be "would" instead?
 * Distribution: "with episodes appearing the day after their live airing". This needs to be updated, since no more episodes are going to air. Maybe add "originally appearing" in there?
 * All caps in ref 106 should be removed. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – I have to agree with Giants2008 regarding the quality of reviews by those who have supported this article. He pretty much took the words out of my mouth. I find it hard to believe that everyone missed the simple mistakes that have been pointed out.

Lead:
 * "He served as a writer, and avouched that writing the episode's scripts was a difficult process during the show's creation." Since you say "during the show's creation", shouldn't this be "writing the pilot script"?
 * " Michael's seemingly erratic behavior often causes him to clash with his team, who do not know about Michael's uncanny ability to solve crimes using details from both realities." A team is singular, one thing. Maybe "his team, that does not know"
 * "it has had large fan support campaigns who teamed up to create the "Save Awake" campaign to convince networks to revive the show." Seems to me it was "try to convince", since the effort did not work.

The first three paragraphs of Conception need work. As it stands, it is a jumbled mess of misquotes, IMO.
 * "Killen stated that the cancellation of Lone Star was a good platform to explore new ideas for a potential television show." What does this mean? How is the cancellation a good platform to explore new ideas? After reading the source, I still don't see what you are trying to say here. It seems to me that Killen is referring to the duality concept, not the cancellation.
 * "Jennifer Salke, the president of the entertainment division of NBC, encouraged Killen to conceive a concept for a future television series after the cancellation of Lone Star." This is mentioned after Killen's quote about creating the series. It seems out of place. Why jump back to Lone Star? Move to beginning of paragraph, or tack on to previous paragraph.
 * "Initially, Salke and Korman looked to sell acquisition rights to Fox." I don't see where in the source it says they went to Fox first. (From the source: "Korman and Salke slipped the spec to a handful of networks, including NBC, whose not-yet-official chief Bob Greenblatt had been a big Lone Star fan." and "Also on that list was Fox,")
 * "Although it successfully made its way into the lower executive branches of the company, the script was declined by Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly, who felt apprehensive upon reading it, stating that Killen was trying to "sneak a cable show" onto the channel." In the source, the phrase "sneak a cable show" was used in reference to Killen selling Lone Star to Fox. It had nothing to do with Awake.
 * "layered with a watery blue filter, and Michael usually wears blue himself". This is a direct copy of source, but not quoted. Don't put quotes, though, just reword.
 * "brighter, golden hue color." This should just be hue, drop the word color.

Production team:
 * "Gordon later compared the television series to The Good Wife. He said that The Good Wife has so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He compared it to Awake, saying, then, "What makes an Awake episode?"
 * Confusing: He compared Awake to The Good Wife, which he compared to Awake? huh?
 * From the source, "why is this an 'Awake' episode?" is the actual quote, not "What makes an Awake episode?". You are completely missing the meaning of what Gordon was saying. Another misquote.
 * "while Cherry Jones and BD Wong's characters were Michael's therapists in one reality." Reword, it sounds like they are both in the same reality.

Casting:
 * "Killen thought that the premise behind the series would be relatable to audiences, making it easier to expand his fanbase." - This also seems like a misquote of sorts. I see no mention in the source about it being easier for Killen to expand his fanbase. (In the source, the discussion is of Lone Star: "there were aspects of Lone Star that were more difficult to get a wider, broader audience interested in") Synthesis?
 * Is there a reason why you give the specific date of casting only once, for a recurring character, ("On September 8, 2011, Innes garnered a recurring role in the series") while general dates (e.g. March 2011) are used for other, more prominent roles? Change the sentence for Innes to "September 2011".

Writing:
 * "Stating that "things that are initially confusing to us when we are just trying to break story", Slade hoped that when viewers watched Awake, they would be instantly oriented as to what reality you are in at the time."
 * The quote here does not fit into the sentence. The wording is off. How about: "Stating that things are "initially confusing to us when we are just trying to break story", Slade..."
 * In addition, I think it would be beneficial to reword the second part, to "Slade hoped that when viewers watched the final version of the episode,", or "Slade hoped that when viewers watched the completed episode," or something like that.
 * You? use "they", as the viewer.
 * "Upon reading the script, Isaacs felt that it was the script was complicated to comprehend." - Makes no sense.
 * "According to Isaacs, knowing which reality you are in is a pleasure." First I questioned the use of the word "you", but upon checking the source, this is another case of not knowing where you got this from. (From the source: "Do you always know what reality you're in? ... That's become a [gift]. It was hard but I quite like hard work.")
 * "He stated that every pilot comes from people who have "amazing prestige", and that there are many talented people, but the head of NBC could only choose one." What is the purpose of this sentence? The rest of the paragraph deals with complexities/difficulties with the show/script. This sentence does not belong.
 * Ref 9: You link to page 2 of the article. Either link to page one, or to the option of a full article on one page.

I've only covered the Lead and Production section. (Please also note my comment toward the end of Giants2008's reviews above.) In addition, my main concerns (and those of another reviewer) from the first review regarding poor paraphrasing were never fully addressed. This, combined with the obvious misquotes I have stumbled upon, lead me to continue to believe that accuracy is a huge issue here. This is still not a Fine Article.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More...I have just noticed, well after making my comments above, that several of my issues are related to this edit where you were trying to paraphrase for FAC. Just further evidence that paraphrasing and accuracy are an issue for you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


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