Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle/archive3


 * 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 15:54, 31 March 2009.

Sozin&

 * Nominator(s): Haha169 (talk), NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ), Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force 

After a few failed nominations and a couple peer reviews, I think that this article has finally reached its potential. The previous reason for not allowing it to pass was it's apparent lack of production details. That has been remedied. In any case, let's start the nitpicking! --haha169 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review -- Dabs and external links (based on the checker tools in the toolbox at the right), and the ref formatting of the article (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script) are all up to speed.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tech. review. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * Done, thanks for the heads up. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/avatar-the-last-airbender-book-3-collection.html
 * Replaced with a reference from TVGuide. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources review NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Budding Journalist 03:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The prose is not up-to-par with 1a standards. Some organizational and comprehensiveness issues as well. Examples:
 * The second paragraph is indecipherable for those of us who are not familiar with the television series. "power of the comet" <- Power is ambiguous here; is this some type of magical comet? Or is "power" more literal? i.e. are they using its trajectory to blackmail their enemy? "Zuko challenges his sister Azula, the ruling queen, to a "fire-duel" in order to prevent further wars." Huh? Who is Zuko? Ruling queen means what? How would this prevent further wars? "destroy an airship armada." Not very specific...who owns this armada and why would they want to destroy it? Who are Sokka and Toph? Some adjectives here and there would do wonders and prevent readers from giving up in the second paragraph.
 * There are certainly enough adjectives. Stuffing it even more would cause horrible congestion and make it even more difficult to read. Most articles that are based on fictional things wikilinks to help the reader understand more. Nuclear has gone and added a few adjectives here and there, but things like "fire duel" has simply been wikified because there isn't a better adjective to describe it. (The real phrase would be Agni Kai, but that would make even less sense). --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "There are certainly enough adjectives. Stuffing it even more would cause horrible congestion and make it even more difficult to read." I strongly disagree. Other than the repetition of "other", "The other sub-plot follows Aang's other friends, Sokka and Toph, as they try to destroy a Fire Nation airship armada that threatens the Earth Kingdom" is much clearer than the mysterious "The other sub-plot follows Sokka and Toph's plan to destroy an airship armada." Wikilinks are helpful, but when a reader has to click and read every single one to understand a paragraph on a work of fiction, the writing is the culprit, not the topic. It's not "fire-duel" that needs explanation; I would not expect one here and the wording generates a sufficient image for readers. It's the reason for the duel that is left ambiguous with the current wording. How would this duel prevent further wars? What does "ruling queen" mean? Ruling over what? Budding Journalist 05:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. I'm going to actually replace some terms instead of adding more adjectives. I see that a fire-duel wouldn't make much sense, so how does a coup sound? --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "This cumulates" Eh? Culminates maybe? Ambiguous "this".
 * "defeating the Fire Lord by removing his bending capabilities"...so...is he dead? The set-up in the previous sentence is not resolved.
 * I think I got the above parts, but I'm not really sure....but I likely didn't do it to your satisfaction.
 * I think this is a little difficult. The "elemental manipulation" seems a little wordy to me, but is it fine? --haha169 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check your linking. The link of bending isn't particularly helpful. Link of Fire Nation twice in two consecutive sentences. Do people really not know what a protagonist is? One learns about this in middle school, no?
 * I changed bending to "elemental manipulation abilities", which isn't exactly that much better, but was the only thing I could think of at past midnight.
 * I delinked the second one.
 * I've been told at prior FLCs to link protagonist; I figured why not to it for this one as well. I do realize that it causes a bit of a disturbance with two different links right next to each other, but I do not think merits delinking one of them.
 * People forget. They might wonder what protagonist is - I don't think there is a really big harm in wikilinking it, is there? --haha169 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's never an inherent harm in linking a single word, but one must balance aesthetics and reader focus with the utility of the link. Blue links are distracting. The use of them is always a judgment call, but "common" words such as protagonist rarely merit linking. Also, please note that these were examples I noticed...if you re-read the article, I think you'll find yourself questioning the utility of some of the other links. Budding Journalist 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The premiere " isn't this the finale?
 * We meant premiere to refer to the July 19 showing, but that is a bit ambiguous. I'll change that. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll handle the rest of the comments tomorrow. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 04:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "throughout the week Sozin's Comet was released " -> +that or "the week of Sozin's Comet's release"
 * Fixed Great suggestion. --haha169 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of Production is a long, rambling monster with no narrative flow. Jumps from topic to topic.
 * Fixed Made a rambling sentence make more sense and cut off the second one. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "which would have made "Book 3: Fire", the third season, the same number of episodes as the previous seasons." Awkward, esp. the word choice of "made".
 * Fixed per above issue. --haha169 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Production section is rather thin. Basic production issues I would expect (when did production start? how did the idea for the finale germinate? given its finale status, what issues did they run into in wrapping up plot lines? any special character design or artwork that was created for the finale? etc.) are not covered. Instead, it just reads like a boring summary (Way too many "The episode was _insert verb_ by _insert name_").
 * That information was, unfortunately, not released. Although I personally did not hear the DVD commentary (perhaps Nuclear has?), I couldn't find any online-sources with that information in it. There is a bit about them expanding the length so they could include the excess of their imaginations... --haha169 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did get a chance to hear the DVD commentary recently and I was very disappointed; there was no new information that I could find besides a very sparse amount that another user got for us. Unfortunately, that seems to be all the additional information we can get. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An over reliance on the passive. Makes for weak prose, and boring prose when the same sentence structure is employed repeatedly ("The episodes were written by", "The episodes were directed by", "Sozin's Comet was originally written as", "The special's music was written and composed by").
 * How does the third paragraph fall under Production?
 * The section was initially called "Influences". Where should it go - another "Influences" section would be the creation of a single paragraph section? --haha169 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "critical reviews throughout, " Throughout? Throughout what? Externally (Throughout the industry? Critics?) or internally (Throughout all aspects of the finale)?
 * Fixed "Was met with many..." --haha169 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "with reviewer Ed Liu going as far as" Who?
 * Who? You mean reviewer Ed Liu? --haha169 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, nvm, I fixed it. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the above were examples only. Give the entire text an audit. Budding Journalist 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but I haven't the time today to do anything of the sort. Perhaps later - I was just working on your suggestions for now. --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * MoS review needed, see my edit summaries. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update by nom - This should be in fairly good shape. I did another look over just now. Though I'm not a great copyeditor by any means, I think it should be good enough to address the conditions above. I'm also to see if I can get another party to help; hopefully, they should be able to help pretty soon. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.