Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle/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 SandyGeorgia 03:32, 27 January 2009.

Sozin&

 * Nominator(s): The Placebo Effect (talk), NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ), User:Haha169, User:Rau J

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has everything that is necessary to describe the episode. In the previous nomination, one of the reasons cited was that it was too short. Unfortunately, there is a lack of people who review or wrote comments about Cartoons on Nick, so this show doesnt have as many citations to lengthen it as other TV episodes do. Besides that, I ready to do whatever needs to be done to get this featured. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak neutral; citation 19 . Also, six reviews should get at least three paragraphs; see User:Steve's comments on this FAC. Sceptre (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation 11 is bad too. Please ref it properly. :-):-) Seriously, why was this not caught before the nomination? I won't oppose since I only found that during a quick scan, but it does surprise me.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll fix up the citations tonight, as well as beefin up the reception section. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect that this FAC would be reviewed so quickly, so I added it and dropped a note for Placebo to do. Hopefully, that should be fixed soon. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a question. For info from an episodes DVD commentary, which cite template should it use? Video or Episode? The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. I use episode for commentaries because I find it more customiseable. Good way to cite a DVD can be seen here:
 * Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "Six reviews need 3 paragraphs" mean? --haha169 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rule of thumb to make sure you're adequately summarising critics: for each review, try to write half a paragraph, at least, about it. Sceptre (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But I only see 4 different citations in the first two paragraphs that refer to critical reviews. (3, 8, 15, and 19)--haha169 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I still feel that the full range of critical opinion expressed in the sources has made its way into the article, though. However, I've switched to neutral on this FAC. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I still feel that the full range of critical opinion expressed in the sources has made its way into the article, though. However, I've switched to neutral on this FAC. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Article stats (were the principle contributors consulted?):
 * Haha169 115
 * NuclearWarfare 65
 * Rau J 17
 * The Placebo Effect 2
 * The Placebo Effect 2
 * The Placebo Effect 2
 * The Placebo Effect 2

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they were. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that one. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Very Weak Oppose This article does not have as much plot as I hoped, so I added more info in the summary in Parts 3+4. It still doesn't have too muchb detail.If it doesn't make it, I'll nominate it to WP:GAN where it would have better chances an d where it deserves. Good luck!What!?Why?Who? (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is already a Good Article...--haha169 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, we've been trying to keep out the excessive overdetailing that people (including you) it seems have been trying to add, including superfluous text like: "after defeating the Fire Lord and bringing harmony to the world." While it sounds nice, things like that have really already been said. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - There are two fair use images in this article and both meet WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * What makes http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/avatar-the-last-airbender-book-3-collection.html a reliable source?
 * Replaced. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same with http://web.archive.org/web/20071217111256/http://www.nicksplat.com/Whatsup/200510/12000135.html.
 * That's an archive of the official Nickelodeon website. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * Please use consistency between "NYtimes" and "New York Times" in the references.
 * Changed to New York Times. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * Is http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=25009 a reliable source?
 * Doesn't have to be; it's used as a review. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * Not only is it used as a review, but it isn't presenting any factual evidence that might require verification. Only an opinion on what some people may think about the episode.--haha169 (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto with http://www.craveonline.com/articles/filmtv/04651115/2/sozins_comet_the_avatars_story_ends.html.
 * Ditto. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * Same with http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1794.
 * And Ditto. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )

Weak oppose from The prose needs polishing; I shouldn't be able find these issues easily this late into the nomination (granted, this FAC hasn't received much love)
 * "which originally aired on July 19, 2008," Second comma is unnecessary
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "This four-part movie focuses" That it is divided into four parts was mentioned merely a paragraph earlier. You said "series finale" there, now you say movie, which is it?
 * All of the "movie" parts fixedfixed. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "and his refusal to kill Firelord Ozai, despite his proven untrustworthiness" What does his being untrustworthy have to do with refusing to kill someone?
 * Cut entirely. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * The second paragraph of the lead has two consecutive sentences start with "This..." Diversify.
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "The four-part movie" Yet again...
 * "5.6 million viewers" Non-breaking space needed between "5.6" and "million".
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "prior to"-->before.
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "received a total of 19 million views"
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * I'd like to see a mention about the production in the lead.
 * Who wrote it and who directed it are both there. Is anything else necessary? NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "That night, however, Aang mysteriously disappears into the water."
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "Meanwhile, Fire Lord Ozai proclaims himself to be ruler of the world, under the title "Phoenix King"," First comma is unnecessary
 * Done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * "Zuko's tracker, June, is unable to locate Aang, but she is able to find Zuko's uncle, Iroh."
 * "and they plan to liberate the Earth Capital, Ba Sing Se, from Fire Nation rule"-->who plan to liberate the Earth Capital, Ba Sing Se, from Fire Nation rule
 * I see a lot of word repetition: "June, is unable to locate Aang" ... "but she is able to find Zuko's uncle" and "and they plan to liberate the Earth Capital" ... "A plan is formed" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is fixed up. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )


 * Oppose per prose; also other comments:
 * First off, I'd like more introduction for someone who hasn't watched the show; right off the bat from the lead I'm lost and confused as to what is going on. For example: "This four-part movie focuses on Aang's non-violent personality and his refusal to kill Firelord Ozai, despite his proven untrustworthiness." First off, I thought this was a four-part television finale, not a movie. Secondly, no idea who Aang or Ozai are, and how Ozai is proven untrustworthy.
 * I'm unsure how to fix this. However, anyone who reads this article probably has watched the TV series before, and if they haven't, Aang and Ozai are both wikilinked, though admittedly, those articles still have to be fleshed out. What would you suggest? NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to address the second part of the comment "four-part" is more of a description of the "movie". The movie in itself is "four-part", hence "four-part movie" It was advertised as a movie by Nickelodeon anyway, but sometimes listed as individual episodes. --haha169 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot summary would look a lot nicer if just combined into straight prose without the level three headings. When one episode ends and another begins can be stated in prose. Once again, there's a lack of plot details for unfamiliars to the series.
 * I can't really find a way to integrate well the episode ending times into the prose. Saying, for example: "declares Azula to be the new Fire lord, as part one ends" just seems wrong to me. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty enough plot details within the article to address the movie. For major series events that may have been omitted in the article could be found in the parent article. Pretty much all of the important plot devices within the movie has been included. --haha169 (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's lots of one-line or sentence paragraphs that should either be fleshed out, removed, or merged to another paragraph.
 * The only one-liner I see is the final sentence, which I don't see how to merge into another paragraph. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That one-liner paragraph could not be merged, but it is recent and upcoming information, and it could expanded with due time. But besides that Annie Awards one, there are no other one-liners. --haha169 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - the prose is very poor - the article requires extensive, third-party copy-editing to bring it up to FA standard. This nomination is premature. Graham Colm Talk 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


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