Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 GrahamColm 19:02, 4 October 2012 [1].

Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy)

edit

Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful nominations of both "Give Peace a Chance" (Grey's Anatomy) and Sadie Harris, I present "Going, Going, Gone" (Grey's Anatomy). As the season nine premiere of the medical drama Grey's Anatomy, the episode featured the death of Mark Sloan. The article was recently classified as good, and after extensive work on this article both as a draft on my computer during the summer and more recently in mainspace, I am confident that the article satisfies the criteria. Thank you in advance for your time, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think it's way too soon for it to be nominated. The episode aired five days ago. I think some analysis of the episode's context in the season is needed, which would come with later episodes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analysis of the episode's context in the season is not usually given. See Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy). This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the article's production and reception. No more critical reviews need to be added, as it gives a large amount. Nothing is missing, and lots of production information was released in the summer. Please consider striking your oppose. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I have developed tons of Grey's Anatomy episodes, and new production information is always released around the same day, or prior to the episode. It is never given later than a week. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what about the episode's influence and development of multiple episode story arcs? Or long term critical analysis that points it out to be one of the best in the season, something of the like? I guess it's more of a fundamental oppose, since I think it's a bit too soon to be nominating something. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on experience, the typical Grey's Anatomy episode critics do not release this type of information. These things would be nice, but with all the episodes I've done, I've never seen that type of analysis for an episode. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Prose comments

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

Oppose per HurricaneHink. Further, apart from a plot summary and a collection of quotes from reviewers, all that's there is three paragraphs of "production". One of those paragraphs is about Twitter photos being uploaded and then taken down. This is just about GA-worthy; for FA, there needs to be more in-depth analysis about themes, character development, symbolism etc. For eg: check out the X-Files WikiProject. They have dozens of episode-GAs like this, but only submit fully fleshed-out articles to FAC.—indopug (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy). As long as an article is as comprehensive as can be, it meets the FA criteria. If there is no information about themes and character development, there's obviously nothing I can do about this. This article is actually more comprehensive than Give Peace a Chance, so please consider striking your oppose. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the "Give Peace" FAC, it's clear that a few basic, tough questions weren't asked, but that's completely irrelevant here.
"As long as an article is as comprehensive as can be, it meets the FA criteria." – this is not true. If a topic is so obscure that there is literally no scholarly attention paid to it, its Wikipedia article cannot possibly "exemplify our very best work".
In this particular case, the situation is made worse by the fact that you haven't waited at all for potential sources to emerge—interviews of cast and crew, retrospectives of the season, DVD commentaries, books about the show etc.—indopug (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that you and I disagree as to whether all articles, theoretically, could be FAs. When a subject is not given more than a description in the sources about it, than naturally our "best work" on that subject would also be purely descriptive. It is as good as we can make it, under the construes of our own policies and guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indopug, I don't know if you read my above comments, but I have dealt time and time again with GA episodes; those sort of analyses are not released for individual episodes, but the series in whole. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, 'If a topic is so obscure that there is literally no scholarly attention paid to it, its Wikipedia article cannot possibly "exemplify our very best work".' This article is not only lacking in analyses, but even the production section has little information of value beyond what you'd get at the IMDb page (dates, songs, cast members); compare with the X-Files article above this at the FAC queue.—indopug (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no FA criteria for scholarly coverage. Short articles on fairly obscure topics (not saying this one is) can and have become FAs. Miss Meyers, for example, is half the size of this article. If something is not in the sources then we could not consider asking for it an actionable oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indopug, you're wrong about this. Any article can become a FA. If the article is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", than it qualifies for FA. All of the sources available for this topic are used, so it meets the criteria. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I normally agree with Crisco, I don't agree with the statement that "If something is not in the sources then we could not consider asking for it an actionable oppose": in instances where the sources don't cover significant aspects of the topic of the article, the article isn't comprehensive. I've written several GA and A class articles which I don't think can be developed to FA status due to either gaps in the available information, or the sources not going into sufficient detail. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA? 1b as currently phrased seems to suggest comprehensiveness covering the subject and not covering the sources. Generally I (personally) consider comprehensive dealing with the literature regarding the subject; a comprehensive article, under that definition, is one that reflects what is in the sources. Comprehensiveness of the subject could be a sticking point over things (some lost to history) that are not in the sources or perhaps even recorded. Admittedly I wouldn't nominate G. Kruger for FA, but I'm considering Loetoeng Kasaroeng as it's reflective of what material there is on it.
The time frame, which you point out below, is a different story — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that an article written about a TV episode can be considered to be comprehensive (FA criteria 1b) less than a week after the episode first aired, especially when its the first episode in a season. While I take the nominator's point that individual episodes from TV series such as this rarely receive long-term analysis (which does raise questions in my mind about their individual notability, to be frank), I think that indopug's comment that there is likely to be further, and potentially substantial, coverage of the episode in the future to be convincing (especially as the current sources are news stories and reviews), as is Hurricanehink's comment that the episode can't be placed in the context of the series at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Going,_Going,_Gone_(Grey%27s_Anatomy)/archive1&oldid=1136097604"