Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over There (Fringe)/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 promoted by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011.

Over There (Fringe)

 * Nominator(s):  R uby2010   comment!  16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, simply put, I feel it is now ready. This is the article's second FAC; its first candidacy ended without any opposes, but one editor did make the suggestion it receive another copy edit. With this suggestion now completed, I am confident the article is up to snuff. It has already received a GA review, peer review, and two copy edits by experienced editors. Much thanks to all for your comments.  R uby2010  comment!  16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review I did a little bit of work on File:Fringe Olivias Fight.png, but the source section needs to include not only the direct link (already there), but also a link to the blog itself, since I couldn't backtrace from one to the other. The "Purpose of use" section could also use another line or two; people get antsy when that's not really good. The other images are fine.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tracked down the actual article of the screenshot, and also added to the purpose rationale. Hope it looks good. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like you got it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead must not contain references. TGilmour (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is simply incorrect. Please stop wasting time. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Use endashes for ranges
 * One of the copyeditors changed the dashes, so I could just undo this edit. I'll wait to hear back before I do that though. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Looks like User:Gyrobo converted the dashes to something else. Let me know if they look alright. Thanks,   R uby2010   comment!  23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 23: why the doubled publisher?
 * Fixed  R uby2010   comment!  17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in how newspaper publishers are formatted
 * Do mean which template is used (news versus web cite), i.e. the work/publisher parameters? I strove to place both where possible, but had to change some of the automatic formatting (i.e. italics in the work parameter for the Digital Spy refs).  R uby2010   comment!  17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
 * Don't repeat cited sources in External links
 * Fixed  R uby2010   comment!  17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 88: location shouldn't be italicized
 * Fixed  R uby2010   comment!  17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Compare formatting on refs 100 and 101
 * Fixed  R uby2010   comment!  17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In reply to your concern about io9 as a RS, I would cite this discussion. The site is controlled by its own editorial staff (Charlie Anders etc), and has been frequently been used as reliable sources for other FAs (such as Blade Runner and Batman). I'll address your other concerns when I get a chance. Thanks!  R uby2010   comment!  18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like io9, AOL's TV Squad contains its own editorial staff, including syndicated columnist Jane Boursaw and TV critic Maureen Ryan (who used to write for the Chicago Tribune).  R uby2010   comment!  17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support&mdash;It looks good to me. I reviewed the article during the previous FAC and it still appears to be in fine condition. I found no other concerns beyond the one addressed below. Good work! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment&mdash;The first paragraph of "Part two" seems a little disjointed; it jumps back and forth between the different characters then leaves some unanswered questions. For example, it says:
 * Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, but Bell and Olivia rescue him. ... "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) are unable to capture Walter.

Well yes, the second follows from the first. Why not something like:
 * When Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, he dispatches "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) to bring in Walter. Before they arrive, Bell and Olivia liberate Walter and escape the scene. It then says:
 * Fauxlivia sees a surveillance shot of Olivia and Walter and goes to confront Walternate. Peter meets Fauxlivia, who drives him to his new apartment.

Wait, wasn't Fauxlivia on the way to meet Walternate? Did this happen? Also, why is she going to confront Walternate? &mdash;RJH (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be cleared up now. Let me know if anything else is confusing. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read over the article again and still feel satisfied it meets the criteria, and the prose is still clear. Although it would help if the infobox image caption can tell who Olivia is and who Fauxlivia is. -- Matthew RD 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Added (left/right) and that she is a FBI agent. Thanks for the support,  R uby2010   comment!  23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I know you say this has been copyedited since its last appearance, but it still needs a bit of work I think. A few examples:


 * "They are the 22nd and 23rd episodes of the season, and the 42nd and 43rd episodes of the series overall. Both episodes were written by ...". That's at least one too many episodes.
 * episodes -> parts  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... each of which is in possession of various historical idiosyncrasies." How can a universe be in possession of anything?
 * In possession of -> contain  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The finale's narrative follows what happens when Peter (Joshua Jackson) is brought back to the Other Side by his real father". Should be "taken back", unless you're writing this from the Other Side.
 * Done  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "While Walter's team journeys to meet with William Bell (Leonard Nimoy) at Central Park, while Peter reunites with his real mother, Elizabeth (Orla Brady)."
 * Fixed  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Walter's team splits up when Bell does not arrive and the alternate Fringe Division attacks them." That's inherently slightly ambiguous. Did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and the attack, or did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and were then attacked?
 * Clarified  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Walter traveled into another universe twice to save him—which counts for something—Peter forgives him." It's not all clear whose opinion the parenthetical "which counts for something" is expressing. Yours?
 * Just rewatched the scene in question. The "gotta count for something" line is a direct quote, so I added quotation marks  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Olivia is revealed to actually be Fauxlivia, infiltrating our side". It seems strange to consider the name of one universe a proper noun but not the other.
 * Fixed 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Walternate visits her, cruelly stares at her without speaking ...". How can you stare "cruelly". In whose opinion was the stare cruel?
 * Well, it was a cruel stare (i.e. not exactly benevolent!) But I removed it anyway 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "They were originally going to have Olivia sacrifice herself to allow Peter and Walter's return to the prime universe ...". Which is the prime universe? Is that its name in the series?
 * Yes I believe that's what the series calls it. The prime universe = Our Side. The meaning was established in the lead but a Copy Editor changed it. For clarity's sake, I removed all references to a prime universe and simply changed it to "Our Side".  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article isn't consistent in whether or not it's using logical punctuation. Consider the difference between "He 'graciously agreed'." and "We were ecstatic when we figured [the cliffhanger] out." Or "... he felt that he looked 'like such a doofus holding a gun,' but changed his mind when he saw the finished production." and "The actor, the producers, and some fans have called the new character 'Scarlie', in reference to a scar on his cheek ...". (Check out where the commas are after the embedded quotes).
 * K, I'll look them over  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I've gone through the production's accessible sources and verified where quotations fall in relation to the original text. There are some that were taken from the audio commentary. In that case, should I leave the punctuation where it is? I'm not entirely clear on where commas, periods etc fall in those situations. Also, I have yet to go though the reception section; I'll work through it in a bit. Thanks,   R uby2010   comment!  01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The parallel universe has a number of famous comic book issues from DC Comics, similar to the prime universe, but with notable differences." We've already been told this in the Writing and filming section.
 * Yes, but this section details exactly what some of those differences are (and thus qualify under cultural refs, at least in my opinion).  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But there's no need to tell us again that DC Comics produced some covers, we already know that. You could, for instance, say something like "The covers produced for the series by DC comics of some of their famous issues showed notable differences from the originals." Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems strange to me that about half of the Awards and nominations section is about submissions that didn't lead to nominations, much less awards.
 * Because we're talking about the Emmys (the biggest awards night for television), I felt submissions would be good additions for this section. Would you suggest I rename it?  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a suggestion, it just seems strange to me. But if that's normal for this kind of article then fine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for very much for looking the article over! I hope I have made all your changes or responded back satisfactorily. Thanks again,  R uby2010   comment!  00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the article has now received two copy edits, so I'm not sure what another one would do for its significant improvement. Thanks :)  R uby2010   comment!  00:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that you ask for it to be copyedited again (my opinion of the general standard of GOCE copyedits is unprintable anyway), just that you look closely through it again for the kinds of things I've pointed out, in particular the consistent logical punctuation. I know I'm being tough, but FAs are supposed to be our best work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I know FA is a tough playground. :)  R uby2010   comment!  01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having now gone through the reception section, I believe I have now addressed your concerns with the punctuation. Thanks!  R uby2010   comment!  03:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're getting there, but I'm still not entirely happy about the prose. For instance, in the Part one section it says "They form a plan that uses Olivia's universe-hopping ability, and amplify it with the help of three other Cortexiphan test subjects". How do you amplify a plan? And plans don't really "use" anything, why not "a plan that exploits ..." instead? Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed that particular sentence. I also made a few other c/e fixes in the plot section. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind I've never seen this series, and am never likely to, but I don't understand this from the Part two section: "Fauxlivia arrives and meets Peter, who drives him to his new apartment." Up to that point I'd thought that Fauxlivia was a girl, so I can't make head nor tail of the "who drives him to his new apartment" bit. Also, "After a fight, Olivia knocks Fauxlivia unconscious". After the fight, not during the fight? Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both plot issues now clarified. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to be able to support this article, but I still can't: "Nick is shot and Sally stays with him, producing a suicidal fireball that burns both them and the Fringe Division's principal investigator". So her staying with him produced a fireball? In general part two of the plot section has an uncomfortable staccato feel. I still think it's close, but no cigar as yet. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure, is it just that section (the plot) that is preventing your support? I tried to clean it up a bit. Part of the problem may be that two copy editors have gone through it and tweaked a few things, which while helping with flow might have made it slightly more confusing for some. Hope it looks better now. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It's not that I find the plot section confusing, rather that it's a series of "he did this", "she did that", "he then did something else". Copyeditors aren't always your best friends if they don't allow your voice to shine through. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the "staccato" style writing was meant to keep the section under the minimum basic plot length for a two hour episode (as with most TV episodes/films, plots can easily go over the word limit). After the recent tweaks, how does it look now?  R uby2010   comment!  04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your changes look great, and really added some much needed flow. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes makes all the difference. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Seems like a very strange series. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated for your great suggestions and support  R uby2010   comment!  22:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


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