Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/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 SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 July 2010.

Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

 * Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) & Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm so riddled with anxiety about initiating this nomination that I'm compelled to burst into song. Forgive my flat notes. The triumvirate of awesome Buffy episodes begins with the most complex, the musical one. Had anyone told me in January I'd be writing anything that had to do with this show, I'd have chortled heartily and then told them to stick something somewhere. What silliness! What foppish inanity not worth my time! Ah, well. I'm late to the Buffy party, but nonetheless a passionate reveler. Seen it? Read the article. Not seen it and think it's ridiculous? So it is, but still somehow applicable to the human experience. Thanks for taking the time. Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (two are doing weird things, but they go where they're supposed to go). Ucucha 16:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've never really seen episode articles that have a background section that is just as long as the plot for the episode. Episode articles should be treated as stand-alone articles - someone coming to it should have an understanding of the characters before hand, which is all that is needed. We don't need to recap the entire fourth season to "get the reader up to speed". This is especially true when it appears that every episode currently has its own page. Moving on to the plot section...at 800 words, it's far too long. Film articles are kept to around 700 to 900 words and their 2 hours. Per MOSTV, it should be around 500 words, which roughly translates to 10 words a minute (give or take a bit...some require less). One of the easiest ways to cut back on it is removing the unnecessay "lead by producer.." types of statements and the titles of the songs. The titles of the songs mean nothing when reading the plot because it isn't like they name the songs in the episode itself. The rest is just unnecessary dialogue details about each scene.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to claim exceptions to following the formats of all television episode articles that precede this one at FAC for the following reasons:
 * There is enough material in thematic and music discussions to justify the length of this article.
 * This episode represents the coming together of issues from previous episodes and seasons as it portrays the confrontations that arise from the characters' being dishonest or secretive with each other. As such, it requires some background for people unfamiliar with the series. You mentioned that this article should stand alone, which I agree with, but then claim that the other episode articles can fill in the details for readers. This is not the case if this article should appear on the main page and the two statements contradict each other. Readers will come to this article who have never seen any of the episodes in the series.
 * There are 14 songs in the episode which take some explaining as to their significance. I thought it best to include them in the Plot section. If you can write a Plot section that will tie into the Production, Themes, and Music sections so the article is comprehensive from beginning to end, please do so, with your suggestions, and place it on the talk page of the article. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The length of the article doesn't dictate how long the plot section is. MOSTV says "complicated plots" might require more space, but this isn't a complicated plot. I could go in right now and remove extraneous dialogue details and trim at least 100 words off the plot without changing anything of substance. The background should be part of the plot. When something needs explaning then do it where it needs the explaining. Otherwise, what you actually have is a 42 min. long episode with about 1400 to 1500 word plot summary. That is highly unacceptable and violates both WP:PLOT and WP:MOSTV, and since the FAC requires that articles meet all policies and relevant guidelines, then I would be opposed to this article passing. When you talk about songs in those other sections, you can actually explain where the song comes from and elaborate on the scene as necessary. It would only require about a sentence or two, and doesn't require the reader to backtrack to the plot just to reread the section and find what was going on with a particular song.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly acceptable to me, so I don't understand what makes it highly unacceptable. However, since this is unfortunately a collaborative project, let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. I'm requesting specifically that major changes to the article, cutting entire sections, removing hundreds of words--please discuss it on the talk page of the article. There are issues I have not considered and should, but just the same, there are issues that you have not considered and should. The article should not be made unstable when we can discuss the best way to accomplish making it the best it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm here to review the article. I've told you what the MOS says about plot sections. It clearly says 500 words, and what you have is about 3 times that. I've told you that a lot of it is merely extraneous dialogue details and describing exactly what is happening when more generalized statements can be made. The point is not to recite the entire episode, but provide an overview of major points. If you need to clarify that something happened to resolve a dilemma from episodes prior (or seasons), then merely point that out. You don't need an entire section devoted to recapping previous seasons. You don't appear to actually want to accept that those sections are completely violating the guideline, and don't seem to want to talk about what can be done to put them back in line. If that's the case, then I'll finish up my review of the rest of the article, place a concrete opion at the FAC and move on. I think the article has the potential to be a good FAC, but I think it needs a lot of fine tuning. I don't believe that in its current state it is something that should be representing "our best" when it's clearly violating our consensus on plot length. To clarify, I am willing to help you out, but I won't waste my time if I'm going to be fighting you on everything because you cannot see that 1500 words is excessive for a 42 minute long TV episode (it would be excessive for a 120 minute long film).    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite astute. I disagree with your suggestions. I don't think this episode qualifies under MOSTV→IAR. This isn't a Simpson's episode where the preceding details about who the characters are and what they have been involved in is irrelevant. I'm open to suggestions via the talk page as to what should be cut. You haven't made a case for what should be cut as it pertains to the rest of the article. I don't understand what your vision is. I read your above comments as to say you were just about to cut out an entire section and then slice the plot in half without communicating with me what you are trying to accomplish. Cutting the entire background section is foolish. Integrating details into the already long Production, Themes, and Music sections I don't think is a good idea either. I obviously think this article is ready to be featured. So, tell me what you're trying to do. I don't understand. If you cannot verbalize your vision, then oppose the article. I'm ok with that. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you need to read more carefully. IAR wouldn't qualify for a 1500 word plot, whether it's The Simpsons or LOST (which is probably 10 times more complicated in one episode than 5 episodes of Buffy). If you read what I wrote, I said that anything relevant that is background should be integrated into the actual "Plot" section. It shouldn't be separated. Just to humor you, I'll post a longer response on the talk page explaining what can be cut, what can be merged, and any other issues with those sections.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All I could find was in Ref 9 (Johnston, Tony) where "April" needs a capital. Big problem. Otherwise all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That has been remedied. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support grudgingly as I can't stand Buffy; I can't see anything that needs changing (although if it were me, I'd split some of the long sections). For what it's worth, I disagree totally with the comment above that 'someone coming to it should have an understanding of the characters before hand, which is all that is needed. We don't need to recap the entire fourth season to "get the reader up to speed. – to me, every Wikipedia article should be able to stand alone if printed out and read by someone with no access to the "parent" article, and if that means long background sections then so be it. In this particular case, it's necessary to know who the characters are and what the in-universe back story is for the subsequent plot summary to make any sense. – iride  scent  18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * After writing a number episode articles, I understand what Bignole is saying, but I also don't disagree with you or Iridescent. Yes, the article should be able to stand alone, but there is quite a bit of information that I think could be removed that wouldn't spoil the reader's understanding. Further to that, I think that the Plot section is too much of an episode play-by-play, rather than a summary of the most important scenes and plot developments.
 * For instance, The day starts in the Summers household with Buffy, Willow, Tara and Dawn as they prepare for school and work. really doesn't have anything to do with the real episode plot.
 * You're right- removed. Courcelles (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another sentence, Buffy looks outside the shop to see if others affected and sees a large group (led by series writer and producer David Fury) singing and dancing about how a dry-cleaning service got their stains out ("The Mustard"). Does this really advance a reader's understanding of the plot?
 * Same with As they argue, they walk past a woman (series writer and producer Marti Noxon) protesting a parking ticket in song ("The Parking Ticket"). It doesn't have anything to do with the main plot. It could serve the prose better if it simply said that the entire population of the city is affected and breaks out in song. Yes, they were funny/odd scenes, but they lasted mere seconds, and a quick scan of the production/writing and themes section you don't appear to have included any critical commentary on them. I feel you may have mentioned it purely because Fury and Noxton sang the lines, and it's all a bit too trivial. As I was reading on, I did find a sentence about Whedon wanting to get the Mustard song "out of the way", but I still don't think it's enough to warrant a mention in the Plot.
 * I'll respond to both of these in one go. You can make a perfectly logical argument that the Mustard advances the plot more than the Parking Ticket, as the Mustard is the first proof for the characters that the singing is a broader phenomenon than the Scoobies.  You can also make a decent enough argument that neither matters much.  However, that argument isn't going to go anywhere but in circles- the real reason I feel mentioning them both is justified is that this article crosses genres- while it looks and feels like a TV episode, it also has elements of a musical or a album article, which would both be labelled in-comprehensive if they didn't mention certain songs. Would an article on Abbey Road be complete without mentioning Her Majesty? (I'm not drawing a direct analogy- Her Majesty is more significant than these songs.  My lousy memory just can't think of any other really short songs right now.)  I hate to say this, and I'm sounding like a broken record, but MOSTV isn't written to accommodate musicals- they're just too rare. Courcelles (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire first paragraph of Themes seems more suited to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) than this article. I don't read anything in it that is relevant for this episode, except to be used to open the section. Another sentence that seems to serve no purpose is At first, the songs are innocuous. Xander and Anya say they argued, sang, and danced about Monkey Trouble; Willow and Tara shared a duet about dinner.
 * In some ways, you're right, that paragraph is entirely about what has gone before, and the series in general. However, it frames the discussion of this episode in particular, by putting it in context against the running themes of the series- it could go- but would removing it make the article any stronger? Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the plot section, the Themes section also goes over the plot again. The first few sentences which begin with As the episode progresses, secrets are revealed. right through to ref 22 are more plot information, rather than in indication of a theme (except to say that it's a secret). After watching this episode just last week, for me, being worried about becoming an argumentative drunk like his parents is neither a theme of the episode, nor a theme of the series (We did hear his parents arguing a couple of times in previous episodes, and "Hell's Bells" returns to this, but that episode comes later, and at this point in the continuity, I question whether it's even a theme of the character).
 * Generally, I'm feeling a bit empty after reading the Themes section. I don't think I'll be able to say what I want to without sounding a bit rude or blunt, but I don't think it knows what it wants to be. It's a bit confusing and a bit of a mish-mash of information that sort of seems like it's been thrown in there simply because what's been said can be attributed to a scholar or other source. Is it presenting themes of the series, themes of the episode, themes of the characters, or all of the above?
 * The Music and style section I prefer. This carries a lot of information that I would class a theme, such as the 50s-style family-sitcom TV-theme opening, and the Xander-Anya/Fred-Ginger number. These for me are themes, but then, I haven't read all the books, scholarly essays and other Buffy studies on the episode and series, nor watched the episode numerous times.
 * Prose:
 * and is sometimes shown in theaters where the audience is invited to sing along. yet the final paragraph of the article says these have been stopped by Fox. Tense needs updating?
 * Well, it's run smack into Verifiability, not truth. I've edited the lede to reflect what can be verified, without conflicting the likely reality.  Moni and myself have spent collectively hours looking, but the sources just aren't there to prove there have been any since late 2007- the theatre show is dead and over, and no one is writing about anything since.  And without a single reliable source saying something happened, they didn't. Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * During the first three seasons of Buffy, I know that "Buffy" is used a lot in place of the full "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", I'm just not sure it's appropriate in an encyclopedic entry. Seems a bit colloquial.
 * Not sure, I went through and changed it to see what it looks like, . What do you think- useful or just 300 extra characters? Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Buffy is just fine in a scholarly context (see, e.g., Buffy studies). If needed, the shortened title can be explicitly introduced in the lede or Background section, and used thereafter; using the full version everywhere just looks stilted. Hqb (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was included in the Background section. It was removed for brevity's sake. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As does "dally", "pet peeves",
 * Has been reworded
 * In themes, it doesn't seem necessary to say "Michelle Trachtenberg (Dawn), Alyson Hannigan (Willow), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy)" etc. You've already said who plays who in previous sections. You could also probably just use their surnames as you do with Whedon and Davies.
 * This has been removed from the 'Themes' section, though it is still present in the 'Production and writing' section. Courcelles (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * it references the role of Slayer as played by Buffy as played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, we don't need to know a third time that Gellar plays Buffy. Also, for that entire sentence: huh?
 * Has been modified Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Prose introduces Gareth Davies as the producer, later refers to him as Davies, but then reintroduces him: Producer Gareth Davies was so impressed
 * Modified. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * " Sweet was to be portrayed as "slick", unlike many of the demons on the series who had been designed to be crude and ugly." just extra words that don't need to be there
 * Removed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Xander fears that his future marriage will turn him into an argumentative drunk like his his parents have become ." Repetitive and unnecessary. Are we sure he said "parents"; pretty sure it's just his dad who's the drunk.
 * Extra words removed, and I also don't find any evidence his mother was a drunk as well, so changed. Courcelles (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS:
 * "Once More, with Feeling". "with" is used in the article title, vs. "With" in every other instance in the prose
 * Standardised as "Once More, with Feeling". Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Song titles have a similar problem.
 * After another read through, I believe all these have been fixed. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Spaced en-dash used in the Lede, but unspaced em-dash is used in the rest of the article. Should stick to one format throughout (WP:DASH)
 * Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * from 50s sitcom theme in the Lede, per WP:DECADE, I think you should use the full 1950s as I'm not sure it qualifies under " cultural phenomenon" or "notable connection between the period and what is being discussed in the sentence". If it does and I'm wrong, it needs an apostrophe ("'50s" not "50's")
 * Fixed Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * runaway genius — the rare fusion spaced emdash should be fixed
 * Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * achievement...., drama.... and growing up.... an ellipses is usually three periods. If you're inserting them, I'm pretty sure that you should add square brackets, too: [...] or use the template interp.
 * Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere that you should use the template '" to produce where you have things like 'The Body' " and feel free.'" Currently they're formatted differently, one spaced, one not.
 * Done. Good thing template limits aren't a worry with this article... Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In critical reception, you've wikilinked Salon.com, but not any other publication/website that reviewed. Also in a previous section, UPN is linked but BBC isn't. Be consistent in linking or not linking.
 * Fixed all this, by adding more links.
 * The Lede section is supposed to summarise all information presented in the main body of the article, but there's one glaring omission from the main prose: The airdate. In fact, there's no mention at all about broadcast and distribution. When did it air, on what network, notable international broadcasts, is it available on DVD, and possibly "new media" (iTunes, XBox Marketplace, Hulu, etc)? There are passing references, such as UPN, the television network that aired Buffy's last two seasons, and "Once More, With Feeling" received almost universal praise from media and critics when it aired, upon its overseas syndication... but I don't feel that's enough. Perhaps you could consider adding a section for this, maybe using that UPN sentence to open it, and perhaps integrate the Public showings section? I don't know if you'll be able to find viewing figures, but maybe its worth a shot as you've mentioned many times how it's one of the fans' favourites. EW most likely had them but I don't know if you can get access to old issues. BARB has them for the UK, though.
 * Pulled out the Nielsen ratings/share and weekly ranking, and added them to the article. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC) (ETA: DVD information has also been added. 07:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Images, partly:
 * No doubt someone will come along to review the images properly, but based on my previous experience at FAC with episode articles, I don't think the Infobox's image FUR is strong enough. (See my FAC nom for one such example)
 * I took a different tact- I just removed the image. I can't convince myself that a still of the "Where Do We Go..." scene adds anything to the article when the video is present. (And the video brings a lot more to the table than the still does.) Courcelles (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that File:OnceMoreWithFeeling-Mustard.jpg may be incorrectly licensed as the main depiction of it is a still of a copyrighted video recording and a public performance of a copyrighted piece of work. Just as we wouldn't be able to slap a CC-SA-3.0 license on a photo of a TV set playing a DVD of the episode, or a photo of a piece of artwork, etc, I don't think that we can stick one on this image either. But I may be wrong. :) I haven't looked at the other two images or video file.
 * Not really sure, either. My inclination is that the man singing is the focus, and the CC-SA tag is valid, but images aren't my area of expertise at all. Courcelles (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Went and found more opinions- they agree with yours, so, removed. Cropping out the screenshot doesn't produce anything worth having, sadly. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's all I have. Please ping me on my talk page if you have any questions because I'm likely to forget to come back otherwise! Matthewedwards : Chat  20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Further comments, quickly Best, Matthewedwards : Chat  21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Throughout the series, the characters self-consciously address their own dialogue and actions. Surely this should be "episode"
 * Sort of, and sort of not- the phrase has been changed to make it clearer. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that video is too big. Images we use under FUR apparently have to be smaller than 300px on their biggest side, the video is 480px
 * Gah, thank you. I just spent two hours resizing that thing.  I hadn't used the command prompt since 1991, and it showed. Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That last paragraph of production deals with things that are covered more in the second half of the third paragraph of Themes, the bit that begins, Of all the characters, Anya is most preoccupied throughout the episode of the style of singing and songs. Just wondering why it's not included there instead.
 * This has been reorganised. Courcelles (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to keep reminding us that Richard Albright is an essayist. After introducing him the first time, refer to him subsequently as simply "Albright".
 * Been fixed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are often two, three, or four sentences that go by unreferenced. They may be sourced to a reference that appears later, but because many are offline books I'll have to AGF that they verify what they claim to. This is especially true for the Themes section. I have a couple of things that I want to point out and query, though:
 * hinting to the audience that the strangeness of the musical format of the episode is also evident to the characters. do you have a source for this? It's not clear that ref 5, used in the next sentence, covers it because that sentence is about something else entirely.
 * Yes, the Albright source also supports this, added a duplicate citation to make that clearer.
 * Buffy is torn between doing what she wishes and what she is called to do, in a Kantian illustration of free will vs. predeterminism, symbolized by her responsibility as a Slayer and her adolescent impulses. I'm not really sure what "Kantian" means, but this seems to be an opinion, so can you attribute it to someone?
 * Attributed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * She changes again, slowing the tempo to challenge Sweet not to give her a song, but "something to sing about". if you can attribute this to someone, great, but I always assumed she was asking her friends (maybe even God?) to give her something to sing about. They've all been wondering for 7 episodes (or about 7 weeks in-universe time), why Buffy has been so depressed and ungrateful and distant after they pulled her out of a hell dimension and back to Earth with her life and her family and friends. They don't know the truth; that she was in Heaven and happy there, and everything on Earth is like Hell, so she's challenging them to show her why she should be happy and grateful.
 * Attributed. Courcelles (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is excellent and easily meets the FA criteria. I'm not in the slightest interested in whatever arbitrary conventions have been established for formulaic subjects like episodes of The Simpsons, as this particular episode of Buffy is clearly so very different from what preceded it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With crystal clarity, I have realized I am not interested in getting this to FA. I'm requesting it be archived, or someone else may replace me as a nominator. Note on Karanacs' page to follow. --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'd ask that it not be. I have access to the books used, and while I'm in no way qualified to do this, I'd like to try if no one else is interested. (I know I don't really have the credentials to be making such a request, either.) Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. That this is not a run-of-the-mill episode, but rather a full musical incorporated into a single episode, and is presented clearly and comprehensively. The musical-within-a-drama itself breaks the rules so to speak, and in my view, begs for a comprehensive explanation, which has been done very well in this article. I've made a few changes and tweaks, but nothing major. Found one inconsistency: the statement that Whedon realized his cast were musically talented seems a bit at odds with the statement that few had singing experience. If the sources support, maybe change to few had professional or theatrical singing experience? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Though I think this is one of the better episode articles out there, the fact that people seem to want to fight tooth and nail with any real changes to the page that I feel would both better the readability and bring it in line more with the appropriate policies and guidelines means that I cannot support the page right now. You'd think I was asking someone to commit murder. The fact that people don't want to seem to address my concerns, but make excuses for why things shouldn't be changed, and apparently also ignore a lot of the concerns that Matthew brought up above. There is a lot of redundacy on the page as far as the plot info goes, information not relevant to this specific episode but more the series as a whole, and there is a lot of trivial minutia that can easily be trimmed to make this a finer tuned page. My comments just on the plot section are still on the article talk page, unaddressed. There are also problems with POV wording, especially in the Critical Reception section, and general wordiness that could be cleaned up. There article is really good, but the refusal to make any real changes inhibits me from supporting it as "one of Wiki's best".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should hold off on that oppose just for now. Someone has asked to take over the FAC, there are others who are actively making edits to the article in response to some of my concerns. You may or may not get what you want re the removal of some plot details, but I think you should at least give them a chance. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat  21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's some of your things that I just can't work on because the library the books needed are in is locked up until Monday due to the holiday. Courcelles (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I've done a thorough copyedit of this article, which will hopefully clear away some of the dissatisfaction with the prose (which I thought was generally solid even before I began). The research is impressive (Buffy studies? What the..?), and the organization is great. Images and other media are used appropriately, and I feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Scartol  •  Tok  15:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Very well sourced, very well written, no issues that I can detect. Gage (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I also found little to amend or improve in this excellently written, well-structured and well-sourced article. I feel that the article is balanced in length and depth, appropriately for its subject, without significant omissions.  The video clip and the lead image are taken from the series but appear to have valid rationales for non-free use, whereas the other three images are covered by CC licenses.  The images and video clip all have ALT text and succinct captions.  Its citations are also consistent.  Willow (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak Support This is really a great article that meets the FA requirements with few mostly unrelated flaws. Most of the ones Matthew raised were legit, but BigNole I think is misundertanding the purpose of guidelines (remember that even policies are ignored if they make an article worse).  I agree it's a bit wordy in some places and has some... very minor instances of POV wording, the plot/background sections could MAYBE be trimmed just a bit.  The problem is that even if I did try to trim some parts out of plot/background, it would take a lot of time to do it properly without losing content, and wouldn't really improve the article much (although I encourage the editors to try to do so anyway).  Since it is a musical, I find it hard to justify shortening it too much without mentioning where the songs are sang regardless of how campy some of them are otherwise it fails to meet the "is it comprehensive" creteria to a lot of people, and probably the average reader.  It is subjective though, and the article could use a few tweaks, thus the "weak" in support; however, as mentioned it's top class otherwise and most of it is simply outstanding for the subject matter. RN 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Close to all of Matthew's points are addressed, so I'm changing to full support. RN 12:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a thorough treatment on all levels. For mine, I found the plot section okay and not over-detailed. I agree with the preceding in that I suppose bits could be trimmed here and there but that nothings sticks out as superfluous as such. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I've only seen season one and a few scattered episodes of Buffy, so I needed some of that background. I think that the article does quite well in orienting a semi-familiar reader to the context of the episode. And I found the plot summary useful as well. Excellent article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


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