Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/True Detective (season 1)/archive5


 * 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2016.

True Detective (season 1)

 * Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy (which numbers to four as we speak, woah), each due to the minimal attention it received. I've worked on this article on and off over the past year, and thanks to several copyedits and peer review feedback from the likes of, I believe it satisfies all aspects of the FA criteria. Will the fifth time be the one? I hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 5:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * '' Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn

 * Comment I'm going to start looking over this shortly. Big fan of this show... Er, this season that is. (There was so much promise in the idea of True Detective-goes-Chinatown, how could it have gone so wrong?) —BLZ · talk 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Between this source, this source, and this article linked in that second source, I'm not really clear on the development timeline. It seems as though Pizzolatto wrote about two episodes; then (from the first source) signed the "blind" development deal with HBO (where they, according to Pizzolatto in the first source, seemed to secure the exclusive rights to run the show or not); then worked with Anonymous Content to get Fukunaga, McConaughey, and Harrelson on-board while he finished the full season's script; then, according to the second and third source, entered a bidding period with cable networks competing to run the show, and HBO won. First, I don't think this whole process is summed up adequately in the article. But second, there seems to be tension between the "blind" development deal, with the apparent exclusivity HBO gained at that stage, and the open bidding process. Do you know more from other sources that might reconcile the contradiction? It's possible Pizzolatto mischaracterized the nature or timing of his agreement with HBO in the interview but it seems he knew what he was talking about. Also lost is the role of Anonymous Content, which in the current draft merely "supported" Pizzolatto as he wrote the script for the second episode, but which according to the second source actually managed Pizzolatto, developed the series in-house, and produced it for HBO.
 * In regards to the contradiction, unfortunately nothing significant turns up. Perhaps the closest I've encounter being a Pizzolatto interview with Wellesley Cinema of New Zealand, in which the interview asks about his "unusual" deal with HBO, but Pizzolatto doesn't really clarify beyond what he has said to the media in prior interviews. The sources already cited in the article are the same and even a comprehensive spread in Vanity Fair from last season not cited here yields nothing. Perhaps he's only being vague and stating what is necessary of his agreement with HBO to the media rather than a mischaracterization, but ultimately it looks like there isn't much that can be done about the issue regardless.
 * Somewhere, maybe once in the lead and once in the body, there should be a quick explanation of what an anthology show is. The format and term are becoming more common but it should be clear to someone who doesn't follow TV at all that this is a show where each season is its own self-contained, unrelated story.
 * Done.
 * Be sure to tether every statement to a source. I had to go fishing to find the source for the sentence about Petrochemical America as an inspiration for the opening sequence. Unless a paragraph is derived from a single source, every sentence should be individually sourced, and certainly anything with a quote (which also should be attributed in-text as much as possible — both writer and publication, or to whomever is being interviewed.)
 * Noted.
 * Kudos for archive-linking all the sources!
 * It was a bitch archiving all of those links, but most definitely well paid off in the end!
 * Might just be me but I feel like the grid arrangement used here is better than the one used in the article. We can see the final product and intermediate stages at an equal size with the first frame, rather than the first frame dominating the arrangement.
 * I actually agree now that you've mentioned it. I've updated the file (twice in fact, because I thought I messed up the first attempt 😂), let me know what you think.
 * I was surprised to not see any mention of the famous extended shot from the end of the fourth episode.
 * This is something I've been going back and forth about and think a summation of that scene is better suited in its episode's article rather than the season article. But perhaps dedicating one or two sentences, or a minor paragraph wouldn't hurt as it is most obviously a significant event in the show's history.
 * I think filming might be a good place to mention it. Reception to that scene or in-depth consideration that would require a paragraph is probably unnecessary and, I agree, better suited to the episode article. Within the season article, I think it would work within the filming section as a (maybe the) characteristic example that speaks to the stylistic ambition of the show as a whole. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a whole book of essays on True Detective season one that goes uncited here. The back cover alone features praise for the series from philosophers Eugene Thacker, Nick Land (imo a total creep), and Simon Critchley. I'm not sure how much within the book is essential to improve the article to featured level. I haven't read it all. However, I can recommend the one essay I have read, "'True Dick'...The Accelerated Acceptance and Premature Canonisation of True Detective", which talks about the nature of the show's critical reception, the "spectacle of hyperbole" and hype, internal contradictions in the show's philosophical attitude, and yes, the McConaissance. I think the remaining essays may have some use unpacking the philosophical themes, but surely not all of them need inclusion. I'll leave it to you to determine which are worth synthesizing into the themes/critical perspectives already discussed: religion, pessimism, feminism.
 * I believe I've seen Nick Laud's reading of the show and was at one point mentioned in the article, but was removed. I'll have to take a look at that book, as I'd like to balance the amount of pop culture sources with academic sources.


 * Sorry to see the scant feedback in all the prior nominations, that's quite surprising considering the high profile of the show. I've also made minor edits to the article myself — let me know if you don't agree with any of my changes. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're edits are appreciated. The prose even looks more polished than it did prior! Many thanks for your time and input, let me know if there's anything else I can clarify or revise in the article. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at this again, I think it's very very very close to FA quality. But, for the time being I have to withhold support until the following are met:
 * 1) I think the development timeline needs slight expansion and clarification within the article. I think you're right that the nature of the initial HBO deal and the subsequent bidding process is probably irressolvable from the sources, but either way some things, e.g. the role of the production company, need better explanation.
 * 2) There should be expansion of the themes/analysis section and incorporation of True Detection as a source. With a whole book of high-quality critical text absent, I don't think the article quite meets the standard for comprehensiveness. Each of the big-idea thematic topics likely merits a subsection of its own rather than merely a paragraph.
 * 3) Another principle subject of discussion among critics that seems to be missing: the unusual, perhaps singular auteur-ness of True Detective, given its sole writer and sole director. This is a topic suited to more-complete explanation on the main article for True Detective, especially since some commentary on the topic is about how both the strengths of the first season and the pitfalls of the second both seem to spring from the reliance on Pizzolatto as the sole writer. However, I think some of this should be woven into this article to convey to the reader just how unusual and surprising the process was within the industry. There's a hint of that in here already, but I think there's a bit more presently left unsaid.


 * I want to emphasize again how close the article is. I think overall it's clear you've invested considerable effort into crafting this, and the quality of that effort is plain to see. Note that my only reasons to not support right now are for what is not there but should be (and really #2 is bigger than #1 and #3 are); I have no bones to pick whatsoever with what is already there, which is thoughtful, polished work. I really want to support! And I won't oppose, in the sense of calling for the nomination to end, because I think the work needed to expand it to a level of satisfactory comprehensiveness is within reach in the time period of this nomination. If those three things are met I will feel confident in supporting. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Shucks, I'm just ecstatic to know that this article nearly satisfies the criteria! My copy of True Detection should be delivered within the next two or three days. In the meantime, I've taken the liberty to tackle your other concerns expand the production section and hopefully adequately clarified the development timeline, divided the themes section in anticipation for the essays and added a new section regarding the show's auteurist sensibility. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow quick work, well done! Message me when you've got True Detection and I'll give it a final look. ——BLZ · talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , sincerest apologies on not responding in a timely fashion first and foremost. I had a busy week at my work/university and this was only exacerbated by the book being shipped 3 days late. But no matter, I've finally received the book earlier today. I've added about four of the twelve essays in the book and plan on either adding additional essays or perhaps expand a tad bit upon the existing material I've sourced from True Detection. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 1:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * any further comments? DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Hi! Apologies for going AWOL, real-life work caught up with me. Looking over changes made in response to my review, I believe this article now meets the featured standard for comprehensiveness or other criteria my review addressed. I'm satisfied looking at the subsequent reviews that any other issues I could think of have been or are being addressed now. This article is worthy of being featured. Great work. —BLZ · talk 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! DAP 💅 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2
Hello, I'm not too familiar with the project of television series, but I'll try to provide you feedback since it looks well written and sourced:
 * In the episodes section, Original air date remains unsourced. I'm pretty sure the "U.S. viewers (millions)" has the dates so could you source it?
 * This is actually basic convention for tv articles of this variety. The templates I used for this page, Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1), are both featured articles and even they are structured in a similar way. I think that's with good reason, too. Sourcing everything in the table is trivial, would make for a sloppy presentation and distract readers from the article.
 * Same with the directors and writers? Is there a way to source it?
 * See above.
 * What's with the lines in the episodes' summaries? Are the episodes too long or do they change between timelines like Lost? The last episode's summary looks quite longer in comparison.
 * There are multiple timelines in the show's plot, primarily: 1995, 2002, and 2012. In the episodes the timelines cut back and forth between scenes. Each of the split sections in the episode summaries begins with the year, so I think it should be clear. The last two episodes are the only ones that take place within a single period; the last summary is not dramatically longer than the one for episode 5, it just looks bigger because it's a single paragraph. I think this part was handled quite well. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What Brandt said.
 * The cast section is unsourced. Maybe the DVDs or sites like IGN have them?
 * Again, basic convention.
 * The second paragraph of conception is quite small. I would recommend to merge it with the first one or third one.
 * Done
 * Lastly, have there been news about sales of "Home media release"? This one is not necessary though. I'm just curious.
 * There is, actually. Added!


 * Other than that, the article looks well written and I'll support its nomination once the issues are solved. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my first FAN, Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , appreciate your input and time. Let me know if there are other concerns that need to be addressed. I'll also make sure to provide a review and comment on your FAC by next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, good work . I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47
Support per my peer review. I could not find any issue that has not already been covered by the above comments. I'm glad to see that this is getting a lot of attention through comprehensive comments as I can tell a lot of work and time has been put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the comment and support. Cheers! DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging all users that have participated in prior FA reviews. DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I'll add comments here as I go through the article.
 * "He developed a fascination with fiction writing while attending graduate school at the University of Arkansas": I don't see this in the given source; am I missing it?
 * This is mentioned in Pizzolatto's Daily Beast interview, although he does not specify which university he attended for his graduate studies. That was actually revealed in the article from The Times-Picayune.
 * Do you mean the two answers after "How did you learn?" and "You mean writing fiction"? I don't think those support the sentence; or do you mean something else in the interview?  And I know it's a minor point, but if you keep the sentence I do think you should cite the Times-Picayune article for the school; others may change the article in the future and it's best to have all the citations where they're needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, specifically where he says "those shows were actually filling my hunger for fiction as an audience more than the contemporary fiction that I was reading" in response. I looked upon another examine and I somewhat agree that what's said in the article isn't supported by the source as I initially. If need be, i can just remove it altogether.
 * I would, if I were you. I think the quote is about him consuming fiction on screen; the sentence in the article is about producing written fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed.


 * "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Alejandro González Iñárritu and Cary Joji Fukunaga, the latter of whom he knew from Anonymous Content": suggest "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Cary Joji Fukunaga, whom he knew from Anonymous Content, and Alejandro González Iñárritu".
 * Done.


 * "Fukunaga carried out research with": suggest "Fukunaga spent time with" as simpler; I was going to suggest "worked with" but you have "work" later in the sentence.
 * Done.


 * 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for corresponding scenes': perhaps 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for the corresponding interior scenes", assuming that's what is meant.
 * Correct. Also done.


 * "The duo went with a tripod design": the duo? Sounds like Walsh is the one sculpting the nests; who else is being referred to here?  From the rest of the paragraph it appears to be DiGerlando; if so, I'd be explicit: "DiGerlando and Walsh chose a tripod design..."
 * Walsh did sculpt them, but he and DiGerlando worked closely together during the whole process, hence "the duo". Also done.


 * "As such, Walsh built devil's nests": suggest "To reflect this, Walsh built devil's nests".
 * Done.


 * "southern Louisiana's remote landscape, which juxtaposes many of the characters' traits and personal, inner struggles": I don't follow this. Do you mean they wanted the title sequence to juxtapose these things?  The landscape, by itself, does not.
 * Nope. This is how it was described by Clair in the interview. I did make the change to "setting", if that helps, since that is much broader in scope than "landscape".
 * Sorry, I'm still not getting this. I tried to follow the link to read/watch the interview, but all I found was the title sequence itself.  Is there an associated interview on that website that I didn't spot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The associated interview is there below the video in the summary tab. Make sure you've clicked on that (although it should appear automatically) instead of the "credits" tab, otherwise, as the name suggests, only the credits will appear. This particular sentence is supported in the second paragraph where Clair says, "When we were initially briefed, Nic Pizzolatto, the showrunner, and Cary Fukunaga, the director, spoke a lot about how the landscape and setting of the show revealed the characters and reflected their internal struggles."
 * Found it; not sure how I missed that. OK, I see the source, but I don't think you can say "juxtapose" based on that; the source talks about the relationship between the landscape and the characters, not about the juxtaposition of the them.  Also, you say "remote", but the source talks about the petrochemical infrastructure and pollution, which don't have connotations of remoteness at all.  (As it happens I used to work in the petrochemical industry, and I've driven from New Orleans through southern Louisiana down to the coast to get a helicopter to the rig; the landscape is an odd mix of industrial and backwoods, and I can see why they wanted to use the landscape in the title sequence.)  And one more thing: you say Pizzolatto and Fukunaga wanted the title sequence team to emphasize the setting; I don't think you can really draw that from the source, which just says it came up in conversation a lot.  That may be why the title team focused on it, but it's not clear they were told to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I revised it a bit for clarification.


 * "the production team initially photographed the local scenery, which were woven together": "were" is the wrong number, but I think you meant to say something like "the resulting images were woven together".
 * Done.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * awesome! Appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, many thanks! Let me know what you think.

More comments:
 * Why is the Swarmatron worth mentioning?
 * The show's score doesn't make much use of synthesizers apart of that particular piece.


 * "women are depicted as "things-to-be-saved and erotic obstacles" for said men": suggest cutting "for said men".
 * Revised.


 * Erin K. Stapleton needs to be introduced when quoted.
 * Revised.


 * "True Detective also explores Christianity...": suggesting cutting "also".
 * Revised.


 * "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, specifically Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895) and Thomas Ligotti, as well as nihilism and pessimism": I don't think this sentence quite works as you have it. Chambers' collection isn't a reading, nor is Ligotti, nor are nihilism and pessimism; they're relevant to various readings, of course.
 * Revised.
 * That's an improvement. How about: "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, often examining the influence of Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895), and the work of Thomas Ligotti."  I've cut "nihilism and pessimism" here because it doesn't really fit into a sentence about the influence of weird and horror fiction -- if it's an important point I think it could be added elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "Allusions to The King in Yellow can be observed through the show's dark underbelly": I think this is a little metaphorical, given that most readers won't have read Chambers or heard anything about it.
 * That's understandable, but however obscure it may be, I think it's important even for a brief mention, especially since it was picked up by many of the critics who assessed the show.
 * Well, I agree it's important; what I meant to say was that it wasn't easy to understand the sentence. The source is behind a paywall, unfortunately, so I can't see how it's phrased there.  The problem is that "dark underbelly" is quite vague -- does this mean specific horrible things that happen?  A general malaise or sense of evil pervading the scenes?  A nihilistic or despairing worldview that it supports?  There's no way for a reader who doesn't already know the show to know what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal article was referring to the show's philosophy. I made a few changes for more clarity if that helps.


 * "the show's evolving philosophy, which increasingly examines a portrait where culture, religion, and society are direct by-products of biological weakness": what does "examines a portrait where" mean?
 * Revised.


 * "Another principal topic of discussion among critics is True Detective's auteurist sensibility" suggest "has been" rather than "is", since the rest of the section has the critical discussion in past tense.
 * Revised.


 * "a dynamic that provides the show a unique place": I don't think "dynamic" is the right word; the fact that two people controlled all the episodes is a fact, rather than an event.
 * Revised.


 * Looking at the source cited for Colin Robertson's comment, I can see why you include it in the "Auteur theory" paragraph, but I think you could make the connection a little clearer for the reader.
 * Admittedly, I'm not sure how to go about that since I more or less think the connection between the two shows is clear enough presently.
 * After reading through again I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I think that's it for tonight; I'll try to complete the review tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

More comments:
 * The second paragraph of the reviews section isn't as coherent as the other three paragraphs. The first paragraph is about the overall positive reception; the third is about the performances, and the four gives some opposing views.  The second paragraph seems to be just an assemblage of high-profile quotes.
 * I set it up that way so as to give the section a starting point. Perhaps I can merge the first and second paragraphs?


 * "Some reviews were not as enthusiastic as the consensus about the season": I don't think it's a consensus if there are dissenting voices; I'd rephrase this.
 * Done.

That's it for a first pass. I'd like to go through the reviews section again and see if there's more copyediting that might be helpful; I'll try to get to that tomorrow or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the not-so-swift response, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 21:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struck everything except for the comment about the reviews. I have a minor point and a more general concern about the reviews section.  The minor point is the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim"; I think this is best avoided, since although most of the reviews were very positive, the series certainly didn't receive universal acclaim, and using Metacritic's terminology seems less useful than just giving the score; the term is even somewhat misleading.
 * This is just more or less basic convention for media articles. I also tried to avoid the issue early on by including Metacritic's critics list for that year, which I think supports the notion given that, according to said article, True Detective was second only to Fargo on the critics lists that year. If these aren't valid enough reasons, however, then I will gladly remove the use of Metacritic's terminology.
 * More seriously, though, the whole review section doesn't read like an encyclopedic summary of the reviews; it reads like a list of quotes, with some thematic organization. I think the section would be better with quotes used sparingly to illustrate the points made.  I may be being unfair here, because I haven't gone through and read every one of the 41 reviews Metacritic links to (and no doubt there are more).  If you think I'm being unfair (or just want some examples), say so, and I'll do some reading and see if I can produce a few sentences that give you a better idea of what I'm talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being unfair per se, but I do strongly disagree with your latter concern. I think most of what is in there adds to the general flow of that section and better reflects the reviews and how very positive they tended to be. In any event, some examples would be great and hopefully from thereon, we can come to a compromise, and if it ends up improving the article even more, then all the more better.

OK. I should say up front that I am not going to oppose this FAC, because this point about the reviews is my only concern, and I am not sure that my opinion on how review sections should be written is something other FAC reviewers would agree with. I don't want to derail a candidacy on something that may be an issue for me but not others. Having said that, I'll make the case below, and you can see what you think.

It's difficult to assemble a coherent narrative for a section on reviews or reception when there are only a handful of reviews to draw from, but that's not the case here. When there is so much review text to go through, I think the article text should be written as declarative statements about the body of reviews, with quotes only to illustrate the points made. That's not the case here. Look at the structure of the second paragraph: it's

"Critic A declared 'B'. C identified the acting, dialogue, and sleek production as its most satisfying attributes. D agreed and said 'E'. In his review F said the season successfully marries Fukunaga's G with Pizzolatto's script, producing H. J felt the first half of the season forms 'K', and by the fourth episode, L called True Detective 'M'."

I've left in the declarative text that is not quoted; I hope you agree that reading this it's clear that the paragraph functions mostly as a showcase for quotes, only providing direct information in a couple of places. Here's a rewrite of that paragraph in a form that I think is more desirable for a Wikipedia article. I'm making up the details here, which are probably totally wrong, because I haven't read the reviews -- but someone who has read the reviews should be able to write a version of this.

"Reviews of the series praised the acting and dialogue. Harrelson's performance was particularly remarked on, with A declaring 'B', and C commenting that 'D'. McConaughey's acting in the final episode also drew many positive comments, such as 'E'; with some reviewers commenting that outstanding performances could be found throughout the ensemble cast.  Several reviewers pointed out that the anthology format, which made it easier to attract top actors, might become more popular as a result of True Detective's success, though some felt this was just a temporary fashion."

In addition to being (no doubt) wrong, I'm not claiming this paragraph is particularly well-written. But it reads quite differently from the paragraphs in the existing review section.

To put it another way, imagine that you've recently read all of these reviews and pondered them, and that you then meet me in a pub, or at a bus-stop, or wherever, and I ask you "What did reviewers say about season 1 of True Detective?" What would you say? You wouldn't reel off quotes. You'd tell me what they liked, what most of them said, what themes ran through the reviews, and you might well recall a few choice quotes to illustrate your point. That's how I think this section should read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost three months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  18:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.