Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Awake task force/A-Class review/Awake (TV series)/archive3

Awake (TV series)

 * Nominator(s): TBrandley 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the criteria. All issues from the previous A-Class review, which was failed, have now been resolved. Cheers! TBrandley 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delegate note – This ACR has been inactive for 20 days; if no reviewing begins soon, it will have to be failed for excessive inactivity. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The following are my comments from the second failed FAC that remain unaddressed since September 8. These represent some minor errors as well as serious misquotes and factual inaccuracies.

Lead: The first three paragraphs of Conception need work. As it stands, it is a jumbled mess of misquotes, IMO.
 * "Killen stated that the cancellation of Lone Star was a good platform to explore new ideas for a potential television show." What does this mean? How is the cancellation a good platform to explore new ideas? After reading the source, I still don't see what you are trying to say here. It seems to me that Killen is referring to the duality concept, not the cancellation.
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Jennifer Salke, the president of the entertainment division of NBC, encouraged Killen to conceive a concept for a future television series after the cancellation of Lone Star." This is mentioned after Killen's quote about creating the series. It seems out of place. Why jump back to Lone Star? Move to beginning of paragraph, or tack on to previous paragraph.
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Initially, Salke and Korman looked to sell acquisition rights to Fox." I don't see where in the source it says they went to Fox first. (From the source: "Korman and Salke slipped the spec to a handful of networks, including NBC, whose not-yet-official chief Bob Greenblatt had been a big Lone Star fan." and "Also on that list was Fox,")
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although it successfully made its way into the lower executive branches of the company, the script was declined by Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly, who felt apprehensive upon reading it, stating that Killen was trying to "sneak a cable show" onto the channel." In the source, the phrase "sneak a cable show" was used in reference to Killen selling Lone Star to Fox. It had nothing to do with Awake.
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Production team:
 * "Gordon later compared the television series to The Good Wife. He said that The Good Wife has so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He compared it to Awake, saying, then, "What makes an Awake episode?"
 * Note: Since my review, sentence has changed to "He said that The Good Wife had so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He says, then, "Why is this an 'Awake' episode?""


 * Not sure why you changed 'has' to 'had'. The show is still has procedural aspects.
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "He says, then," Why did you make that tense change here? Use 'he stated'.
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think you are missing the point of this discussion in the source. As is, I feel this makes little sense to the reader. What are you trying to get across to the reader here?

Casting:
 * "Killen thought that the premise behind the series would be relatable to audiences." - Another misquote. No where is this mentioned in the source. The discussion is of Lone Star: "there were aspects of Lone Star that were more difficult to get a wider, broader audience interested in".
 * Done. TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've only covered the Lead and Production section. In addition, my main concerns (and those of another reviewer) from the first FAC review regarding poor paraphrasing were never fully addressed. This, combined with the obvious misquotes I have stumbled upon, lead me to continue to believe that accuracy is a huge issue here. Several of my issues are related to this edit where you were trying to paraphrase for FAC. Just further evidence of the paraphrasing and accuracy problems. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! TBrandley 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Logical Fuzz mentioned that he only covered two sections, and I reiterate his concerns that all issues from previous FACs were not correctly addressed. That, along with the fact that this has been opened for a month with no supports, two opposes, and actionable objections not correctly resolved, compels me to apologetically fail this nomination. I recommend another peer review before renominating the article. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)