Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)/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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010.

No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)

 * Nominator(s): Ω  pho  is  20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ω pho  is  20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 24 (Supernatural creator..) Eclipse magazine should be italicized as it is earlier in the refs. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Fixed. This has precedence in FA's such as 200 (Stargate SG-1) and Fresh Blood (Supernatural). Ω  pho  is  00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Eclipse Magazine is a source for reviews for Rotten Tomatoes. To be one, it must follow guidelines listed here. One such rule is "Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles", which I feel makes it a reliable source. Ω  pho  is  01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Current ref 16 .. you have the link to the webarchive version only (which wouldn't load for me) need the "original" also. Likewise, what makes this a reliable source?
 * The archived version sometimes takes a while to load, and unfortunately the original is dead. The site has been used as a source for BuddyTV articles here and here. The article's author, Cynthia Boris, has also written an article for Nurseweek here. Ω  pho  is  00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on Refs - Personally, although the sites themselves don't look like more that I'd use for general purposes, I've always been of the mind that personally conducted Q&As should be considered "reliable" sources of info so long as the source itself doesn't have a history of falsifying information - which you can usually find out with simple Google searches.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick Comment: Episode listed as the 95th greatest television episode of all time by TV Guide magazine in the June 15, 2009 issue. Section can be read here. Should probably be added to the "Reception" section for this article.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but forums cannot be used as reliable sources. I can't find this in anything other than forums. Ω  pho  is  01:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying cite the forum, I was saying cite the actual magazine. It was published in print. You can just see what the magazine wrote on the forum link. It used to be viewable on the website, but they removed it for whatever reason. If you don't trust it, though, it's fine, I was just saying the more information (particularly one saying it was among the greatest TV episodes ever produced) would be good for its comprehension.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The forum though cites the website itself, not the print magazine. Ω  pho  is  05:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added in the TV Guide thing. Thanks for letting me know about it. Ω  pho  is  02:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Great article. Did some basic copy editing. One quick question/observation: Do we have to use the same picture of Ackles and Padelcki in the Reception section of this article? It's on the pilot page and on both of the actor's pages as well. Not a big deal, just wondering if there was something different we could put there (I know it's not on the Reception section of the pilot page).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A recurring theme throughout the reception section is praise for their acting. I feel that the article needs images, and this is the best free image I can find of them together. Do you have any other suggestions for possible replacements? Ω  pho  is  05:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support—I copyedited the article and believe it is comprehensive and well-written. My comments on the article's talk page have been addressed, and I believe that it meets WP:FA?. Airplaneman   ✈  21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support A detailed and generally well-written article that meets the standard set by Pilot (Supernatural). Just one comment: "housed the homeowners" sounds a bit repetitive, would "housed the residents" do or do you think it changes the meaning significantly? As Ealdgyth is leaving ref 16 and 24 for other reviewers to think about, Ophois' replies seem adequate to me, especially since the information in the article is derived from an interview with Kripe (the Eclipse ref) and quotes from the actors (ref 16), so as long as the websites can be trusted to regurgitate the quotes accurately there should be no problem. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "residents". Ω  pho  is  22:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Query, has there been an image review? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ophois, could you contact one of the regular image reviewers please and ask for their input? Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked User:David Fuchs. Ω  pho  is  20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Images: File:Jared and Jensen.jpg is demonstrably free (although is there another free image of these costars, from Comic-Con or something, so we have less redundancy with images through each episode article? Just a pet peeve.) File:Norest.JPG is non-free, but low resolution and greatly helpful in understanding commentary on the effect, so I think it's acceptable per WP:NFCC (I would suggest adding specific callouts on the image description page, however, as to what "final moments" are heavily discussed.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the best one I could find. Ω  pho  is  01:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Will supporting reviewers please comment on the outstanding reliable sources concerns. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the nominator pinged all supporting reviewers, requesting specific feedback on reliable sources (I see my request is now several weeks old)? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I messaged Bignole and Airplaneman when you originally asked. I'll send Aiken drum a message since his support came up just last week. Ω  pho  is  14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources are concerning? Aiken (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs 16 and 24. They are listed at the top of this FAC page. Ω  pho  is  15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They look fine for me. Aiken (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you would specifically address why you believe they meet WP:V and WP:WIAFA crit. 1c. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ophois does so above better than I possibly could. Aiken (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Sam insists that he will be saved, but Dean feigns reassurance as he hallucinates a demonic-looking Sam." Hallucinates? Otherwise, I have no issues with this article (support). Aiken (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When he looks at Sam, Sam's face looks demonic. This is explained later in the plot, since Dean can now see demons' true forms, but I can see how it would be confusing. Do you have any suggestions of a better way to phrase it? Ω  pho  is  16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose on 2c: quality of citations (missing author information, incorrect publishers on websites). Comment regarding sources. Now satisfied with the discussion on Eclipse's reliability (Can't support though, I'm incapable of judging all the criteria as correct.  1c/2c look good to me though). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Supernatural Lets Katie Cassidy Go" has an author, I'm sure that Ileane Rudolph would appreciate being recognised for her work.
 * Regarding 16 " # ^ a b "Supernatural at Comic Con: Jensen Ackles". SF Universe. July 28, 2008. Archived from the original on August 22, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080822010304re_/www.sfuniverse.com/2008/07/28/supernatural-at-comic-con-jensen-ackles/. Retrieved August 22, 2010. " has an author, "Cynthia Boris" would probably like to be recognised for her work.  Boris appears to be a specialist "is the author of three TV books including The Official Buffy the Vampire Slayer Pop Quiz Book. Her other works include entertainment features for magazines such as Inside Kung Fu, Star Trek Magazine, Cult Times, Young Rider, and she was a staff writer for the Official Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine in both the US and UK."  The real publisher "b5media" claims that "WE ARE A LEADING GLOBAL LIFESTYLE PUBLISHER THAT FACILITATES AUTHENTIC DIALOG BETWEEN OUR EDITORS AND DEDICATED USERS."  I doubt Boris has editorial control exercised over her contribution to the entertainment channel of b5, but she appears to be expert.
 * Regarding 24 " # ^ "Supernatural Creator Eric Kripke Answers Fan Questions – Part I". Eclipse Magazine. April 23, 2008. Archived from the original on August 23, 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5sCvmHspF. Retrieved September 27, 2009." has an author, I'm sure " Liana Bekakos" would like to be acknowledged for her work. Eclipse magazine may not be a reliable source, their editorial policy states that they publish 90% of submitted content.  They don't appear to exercise factual editorial control.  Liana Bekakos does not have a biographical note on Eclipse.  Writers are unpaid freelancers (with the exception of video bloggers, who receive a percentage of revenue stream from advertising).  Please demonstrate Bekakos is an expert for this to be a reliable source.
 * Style inconsistencies, TVGuide is an online magazine, no italics. Eclipse is an online magazine, italics.
 * Supernatural ratings has a responsible editor who published ("Robert Seidman") who deserves attribution whether he deserves it or not for blankly compiling and republishing Nielsen ratings.
 * Please check all your sources for correct authors, correct publishers (a publisher is the body of people responsible for providing the media (ie: printing) and for exercising editorial and commercial control (ie: uttering) a work. Feel free to ping my talk page so I can recind the oppose. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have corrected all inefficiencies. Ω  pho  is  04:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the first mentioned TV Guide in Reception is in italics because it is the actual magazine, while the later mentions are not because they are the website. Ω  pho  is  04:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Entire plot section has no refs.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The ref is the episode itself, which is the norm for television articles. Ω  pho  is  03:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question. Is there something special about this episode that would make it a good FA? I'm thinking along the lines of the last episode of the Sopranos, which people had been speculating about for ages, and which was endlessly dissected. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of. It didn't really have any impacts in popular culture. The impact it would have on the show itself is mentioned in the writing section. The difference between this episode and the Sopranos finale is that this plotline continues into the next season, whereas the Sopranos just ended. I think any speculation about how Dean would escape Hell would be better suited for the articles on season 4 or "Lazarus Rising", where he is resurrected. Ω  pho  is  14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In that case I'm afraid I have to oppose. Nothing is jumping out at me that would make this article an FA. The writing is ordinary because the subject matter is; that's not a reflection on your writing, because it would be hard for anyone to write about this well. In addition to that, though, it could use a copy edit to smooth out things like "let go due to budgetary reasons". There's nothing of substance about the topic, nothing quirky, no interesting angle, no analysis. The reception section is just a list of quotes, and there's over-quoting throughout the article, e.g. "Although Kripke found it difficult to pen many of the episode's scenes, the terrorizing sequences 'just came right out' because they were 'just so fun.'" (And why "pen" and not "write"?) There's no overview regarding how this episode fits into the series, how the series fits into whatever the genre is (I would have developed the Twilight Zone comparison more), why this episode matters more than any other, or why we should care about any of it. I'm sorry I can't be more positive about it, Ophois.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I used "pen" to avoid repetitions of the word "write". Anyways, I wholeheartedly disagree. The plot section, IMO, connects the episode to the main storyline (I also added in to the lead that they hunt supernatural creatures). The reception section is a bunch of quotes because that is what the reception section, especially for a TV episode, is supposed to be. I also don't see how you can say there is nothing of substance, seeing as how the writers completely changed the direction of the episode due to the writers' strike, as well as the information regarding the design of Hell. FA criteria does require an article's topic to be amazing, or for an episode to have something that people are "speculating about for ages". Ω  pho  is  20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through and trimmed down or reworded some of the quotes. I feel a lot of them, however, need to remain as quotes because it would be speculation to assume what they fully meant. Other quotes I feel are best phrased how they said it. Regarding the Twilight Zone stuff, it would be original research to make any further connections without reliable sources. Ω  pho  is  06:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a Background section. Ω  pho  is  00:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments that are very close to an oppose. I read one sentence and then stopped. ""No Rest for the Wicked" is the sixteenth episode of the paranormal drama Supernatural's third season on The CW, and is the show's sixtieth episode overall." If this is the caliber of the writing, I can see why SlimVirgin opposed it. Is it Supernatural's third season airing on the CW, or third season, full stop?  Are the links to paranormal and drama truly necessary, or do they just turn the lede into a sea of blue?  Is that sentence tight and crisp... no, the lede sentence is as far as many readers get, and this one doesn't draw them in at all.  Plunging forth, because anyone can have a bad sentence, "brothers who travel the country hunting supernatural creatures"  What country are we discussing here?  "The neighborhood scenes were shot in a cul-de-sac of 16 million-dollar homes," There were 16 homes worth one million CAD, or there was a house worth 16 million CAD?  This isn't PR, so I won't keep going... essentially, you need a copy-editor with a good deal of experience in producing featured-quality prose. Now, for my references nit-pick, why does the general ref have a First Last name order, and everything else Last, First?  And I'm not at all convinced on ref 15's reliability (EveryJoe by Cynthia) Courcelles 11:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is based on previous FAC's of similar articles, but I have now adjusted the wording. I have also corrected the "country" issue. As for the cul-de-sac sentence, the hyphen between "million" and "dollar" signifies that there are 16 homes worth a million each. But I can remove the 16 if you want, since a specific number isn't important. I have also fixed the general ref. Ω  pho  is  15:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also replaced ref 15. Ω  pho  is  15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked someone to copyedit it. Ω  pho  is  00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.