Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dark Angel (TV series)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017.

Dark Angel (TV series)

 * Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the short-lived cyberpunk TV series that launched Jessica Alba's career. Article is GA, has received a peer review and two copy edits from the Guild of Copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did a read through and it seems pretty good. I enjoyed many of the interesting details it presented, and it looks comprehensive. There are just a few minor nits I noticed. Otherwise it looks close to FA worthy.
 * "The creators of the comic series Cybersix filed a lawsuit accusing Cameron and Fox of plagiarizing their story which was later dropped": I know what you mean here, but the final clause still seems ambiguous.
 * "...secret government institution...": a secret U.S. government institution?
 * I think its relevant to mention in the Plot section that Logan Cale is physically handicapped. That was a key element in some episodes.
 * Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments. I've reworded the intro to give indication of why the lawsuit was dropped, and i've added that it was 'US' government institution. I've given some explanation in the plot to how Logan becomes a paraplegic; it's a bit complicated. Let me know if you have any further concerns, or if you think it could be worded better. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47


 * At the end of the second paragraph of the lead, I would recommend combining or revising some of the sentences. The sentences about the second season and cancellation are short and choppy and could be run together better. I would combine the criticism for the new plot elements with the sentence about the second season and the part about the ratings drop with the cancellation bit to make it flow better.
 * Reworded. Let me know if you think it still needs work. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me, thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Add a comma after the phrase "Over the season" in the "Season two" subsection.
 * I would clarify that Cameron was initially not impressed with Alba's audition tape, as he did feel something from the tape that was strong enough for him to keep going back to it.
 * If possible, could you expand on why Fox "just barely" renewed the series? Was it due to ratings? The budget? If you cannot find more specific information, it is fine as it currently stands.
 * The source doesn't really say, other than that Fox 'appeared to lose interest' in the show. Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, but just wanted to make sure. It is good as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest combining the two paragraphs in the "Cancelled season" section.
 * I would suggest using "Unproduced season" rather than cancelled season. A similar thing was done on the page for the television show Firefly. This is a more stylistic choice so it is up to you on this one.
 * You repeat mythology twice in close proximity so I would suggest revising to avoid this.
 * You use the phrase "Writing in X" a few times in the "Themes" section so I would add more variety and revise this.
 * I would split the Butkus sentence, with Max's identity as a feminist warrior was one sentence and the part about Original Cindy as another. Also add a comma after "For example" in the next sentence.
 * You use the word "nominated' a lot in the "Accolades". I would highly recommend that you add more variety to avoid this. I understand why you did it this way as it is the easiest verb to go to for an award section.
 * To try and break it up a bit i've done some very minor rewording, replacing two instances of "was nominated" with "received a nomination", but I just can't think of any other way to reword this. If you have any suggestions let me know. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Breaking it up with minor rewording made it a lot better. It is difficult to reword it for an award section, but your edit added enough variety in my opinion Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, but do the two sources (12 and 77) cover all of the information given about the novels. Just want to make sure this is clarified, otherwise more references would be needed for the "Related media" section.
 * No, sources 12 and 77 only back up the sentence they are used in. I assumed the plots of the novels would not require sources, for the same reason the plot of the series (or any TV series or film for that matter) doesn't require a source - the medium itself is the source. I am happy to add the novels as inline citations to support themselves if that is the appropriate thing to do. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I completely forgot about using the medium as the source itself so I see no issue with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Great job with the article! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review. I've put a strikethrough on all the stuff that was easy to address and have replied to anything that might need reviewing. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Awesome work with this article. I now support this article's nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Since the Unproduced season section isn't about the actual show, I'd recommend trimming away maybe half of it.
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was too long. I trimmed away a quarter of it. Thanks for your copy edits yet again; it's always appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Although I will nitpick the reference in the first sentence of the lead. Everything else seems quite well done. I hope it becomes promoted. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I originally added that inline citation as another editor challenged the genre, but I think the issue is resolved so happy to remove it now. Freikorp (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * I find the lead to be a bit disorganized and lacking considering the depth of the article. The first para is a brief plot summary plus a sentence about location; the second para is about reception and airing; and the third para is an odd mixture of adaptations, themes, and the lawsuit clumsily tacked on at the end. Needs work for cohesiveness.
 * Your comma usage throughout is... thorough. Many sentences suffer from choppiness because of all the comma-separated clauses. I bet you could lose 30% of the commas in the prose and have a smoother read.
 * Example: "In 2009, a genetically enhanced, nine-year-old female supersoldier designated as X5-452 (Geneva Locke) escapes, along with eleven others, from a secret U.S. government institution, codenamed Manticore, where they were born, raised, and trained to be soldiers and assassins." There are eight commas in that sentence.
 * Better: "In 2009, a genetically enhanced nine-year-old female supersoldier designated as X5-452 (Geneva Locke) escapes along with eleven others from a secret U.S. government institution codenamed Manticore where they were born, raised, and trained to be soldiers and assassins."

Not bad overall but I think it needs some copyediting for chopiness, evaluation of the lead and Plagiarism sections, and a source review for reliability. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the "Alleged plagiarism" section needs to be here, and may be undue weight. The only two working secondary sources in this section at to Argentine sites publishing direct interviews with Trillo and Meglia, who I am sure were eager to push the subject and national news sites probably loved writing about an American mega-director possibly ripping off an Argentine. I'm not sure that either source even meets WP:RS.


 * Thanks for your comments . Once you pointed out the amount of commas in the plot section I must say I was a bit embarrassed. I didn't write that particular sentence you mention (here is the article before my first edit ), but not only did I not pick up on that neither did either of the two reviews by the Guild of Copyeditors. In any case I have now removed 20 odd commas and I think it reads much better.
 * I think you're right about the plagiarism section; I just left it in there after overhauling the article but now that you mention it I can attest that after spending considerable time searching for sources on all aspects of Dark Angel no coverage of this alleged plagiarism was found outside of the two sources already used in the article, one of which was dead and had to be archived. I have now removed that section and accordingly the sentence about it in the lead.
 * I've expanded the lead somewhat; let me know what you think.
 * I am eagerly awaiting a source review. Freikorp (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The changes look good! I am going another read-through today as well as a source review. Comments soon. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Are you still able to do a source review? No worries if you don't have the time, I only ask as I think it's the only thing this review needs to be promoted now. Freikorp (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry for the delay, ! I will update my review hopefully today. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No other issues noted. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Source review from Laser brain
 * Fn 6, page ranges should be unspaced en dashes
 * Fn 58, it looks like part of the URL got linked in a strange way?
 * Fn 76, what makes this a reliable source? I understand GamePro is a notable publication, but this review by "Miss Spell" looks like it might be user-submitted. I'd rather have a bit better coverage and sourcing to the game's reception. If we can't find any notable reviews of the game, I'm not sure it's worth writing about other than to say a game was made.


 * Thanks for the review, and thanks also for fixing Fn 6. I've fixed Fn 58 and have replaced Fn 76 with a more reliable source which also has more relevant comments for this article. Freikorp (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Coord note
 * I saw Aoba's query re. the referencing for the novels. Although it's true that plot info doesn't require citations in WP, I would've expected referencing for anything beyond the plot, such as authorship and publishing dates. In a related vein, re. Cast and characters, though I understand not citing info on the characters that's gleaned from the shows themselves, casting info and anything on the development of the characters (real world stuff, as opposed to in-universe stuff) should ordinarily be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your comments. Just clarifying, can I keep the plot summaries of the 'related media' books if I only add a citation to the books themselves? Or is that too much detail using just a primary source? In the meantime I've removed the plot summaries and have just cited the two of the four books that don't appear to have any secondary coverage themselves to say they exist (see changes here: though I do think the plot summaries added something of value to the article so I'd like to reinstate it if I can. I'd much rather see the article promoted though so I won't contest axing all of it if that's what you think is appropriate.
 * I must be missing something. What in the 'Cast and characters' section pertains to the real world and should be referenced? Is it the mention of certain characters that don't appear in the second season? I've found a source for one and will try to find sources for the other two if that's what your referring to. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I now have citations for all the characters that cease appearing in the series. Freikorp (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, tks for your prompt response. I wasn't suggesting that the titles and plot outlines of the books needed excision, just as long as the publication details (titles, authors, dates) were cited -- of course one might argue that the place for book plot summaries is in articles on the books rather than articles on the TV show, but if the books don't seem to justify their own article(s) then I guess no harm in putting them here.
 * I think things may have been confused because you have a Cast and characters section and then you have a Casting and filming subsection later. If everything about who played who and the comings and goings of cast members in the Cast and characters section is covered (and cited) in the Casting subsection then I guess no harm leaving it uncited in the first section -- you get me? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . So I've added the plot outlines back but now with citations to the material themselves.
 * The 'Casting and filming' sub section only contains information on Alba's casting, because she is the only cast member I could find detailed casting information on. It doesn't contain information on other cast comings and goings, as I could only find sources confirming that cast members came and left, without giving any real explanation as to why. Accordingly I thought if I mentioned comings and goings there I would just be repeating myself. Anyway I've now found sources for everything in the 'Cast and characters' section. Let me know if there are any outstanding issues with this article. Freikorp (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks, I think we're fine to promote now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.