Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Quantico (season 2)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

Quantico (season 2)

 * Nominator(s): Krish  &#124;  Talk  00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this. Krish &#124;  Talk  00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47
 * The infobox image needs ALT text.
 * For this part (who has been working undercover for the FBI as a CIA recruit to uncover a rogue faction of the CIA called the AIC), I would avoid repetition of the “CIA”. I do not believe that the “of the CIA” is necessary and I think you can remove it without losing meaning or context.
 * In this part (Parrish must confront a terrorist-instigated hostage crisis at the G-20 summit in), I would add a link for “G-20”.
 * For this part (before moving to Mondays at 10:00 pm after its mid-season break), do you think it would be beneficial to link “mid-season break” to the article hiatus (television)?
 * For this part (The second season was well-received by critics), I would link “critics” to television criticism?
 * In the “Overview” section, FBI needs to be linked in the first sentence. In the same section, I would link G-20 as I suggested for the lead.
 * Since you do not appear to be using the Oxford comma in this article, for this part (the President of the United States, the First Lady, and several other world leaders), the comma after “Lady” should be removed.
 * In the same section, write out “New York City” in full in the link to “New York” as New York and New York City are two separate things.
 * Something about this sentence (The real aim of the group is to get to the surveillance drives the world leaders brought with them before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages, does) reads awkwardly. I would rephrase it to the following (The group’s real agenda is to get the surveillance drives from the world leaders before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages).
 * For the phrase “CIA director”, I would link it to the following article Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
 * For the “Overview” section, you refer to Alex and Ryan by their first names, but you reference Roarke by his last name. I would suggest choosing one or the the other to stay consistent. Since you appear to use the first name for most of the characters, you use “Henry” instead of “Roarke”.
 * I am a little confused (While walking in New York City, Alex becomes suspicious of mysterious white vans) by this part. In what context is she suspicious of these vans?
 * I would unlink the G20 link in the “Kudove” episode summary as it would linked in the above section per my suggestion.
 * For the “Mi6” link in the “Kmforget” episode summary, I think that the i needs to be capitalized to read as “MI6”.
 * For this part (Raina is actually Nimah, who is working with CLF; the real Raina is tied up), could you provide context to where the real Raina is tied up?
 * For the “Cleopatra” episode summary, is there any reason why the guest star for the “Hannah Wyland” character is brought up while guest stars from other episodes are not addressed?
 * It's because this episode revolves around her way too much as opposed to the rest. Important details and the motive is linked to her. That's why. Krish &#124;  Talk  22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I still do not find that a strong enough reason to put the actor in the episode summary when none of the other actors are mentioned in the episode summaries. If the reader is interested in finding out who plays the "Hannah Wyland" character, they could easily look at the "Cast" section. It appears that the actress' name has already been removed either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide ALT text for the Chopra image in the “Production” section. (I am not really sure if the image is necessary as the section does not directly talk about Chopra in-depth and you can already see Chopra in the infobox image, but I will not press this. Just wanted to raise this to your attention).
 * In the first sentence of the “Development” subsection, I would add a link for the first season (i.e. mid-way through the first season).
 * In the second paragraph of the same subsection, you begin three sentences with “Safran”. I think you can replace one or two of these instances with “He” as the pronoun would be understood through context.
 * I am not sure why FBI and CIA are both linked and spelled out in this subsection when they both are already linked (i.e. the contrasting working ethics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, saying). Looking at this sentence, I would suggest spelling out FBI and CIA in full on its first instance with the acronym after it in parenthesis.
 * I would combining the ‘Filming” and “Casting” subsection as I do not see a real reason to put a short paragraph as its own subsection.
 * Initially, I ha no subsection but AlexTheWhovian insisted me to. Krish &#124;  Talk  22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have combined the two subsections into a "Casting and filming" subsection to keep up with AlexTheWhovian's advice. Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with the list. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing. I will have to watch this show one of these days lol. Anyway, I will support this for promotion (on the basis of prose) once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For this part (involving the current real-life political scenario), I would clarify what is meant by “the current real-life political scenario” as it may be confusing to those reading the in the future. Are the critics referencing anything in particular?
 * Is there any reason for the TBD parts in the “Ratings” chart? How is it different from N/A?
 * Done. Krish &#124;  Talk  22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your revisions. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – All of my concerns have been resolved. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Kailash
 * None. The article looks great to me, and it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – Everything looks good to me. Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Vedant
 * Although it looks mostly well done, but I do have a couple of concerns about the critical reception section. I do not believe that the episode recaps from one critic commands an overall well received tag. Also, following it there seems to be no negative review to balance anything at all. I see one largely critical review on RT, but I am sure there are a lot more mixed reviews that can be easily accessed and incorporated into the section. Numerounovedant   Talk  14:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you are saying but I couldn't find any reviews for the Season 2 premiere. The one which I actually found are not reliable sources. So I used the only magazine which reviewed it. I found this and this and both are positive. But I can add some criticism about the early episodes. Are these sources reliable? Well TCOvermind seems like a reliable source since it's parent company is Zap2it. Krish  &#124;  Talk  21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The opening lines here might be helpful to substantiate your claim Krish. Also, try TV Fanatic, BuddyTV, Entertainment Weekly and Vulture for reviews. TVOM should be fine too. You were right to look for the premiere/finale reviews as they tend to offer a (anticipatory) summary of the overall reception of the season. Numerounovedant   Talk  03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a negative review and another review about the premiere. Kindly check if the new addition is okay or not. Krish &#124;  Talk  23:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about now? Feel free to work around the edits if you want to. I can support this now, fine work Krish! Numerounovedant   Talk  04:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like your version and I have no problem with it. Thanks. Krish &#124;  Talk  14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed (made some minor tweaks). Promoting. -- Pres N  17:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


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