Talk:Dead Like Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dead Like Me article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Dead Like Me was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Crystal

Not even one mention that Crystal Smith is an ex Special Forces agent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.210 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See here. Stormin' Foreman 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

After reviewing the article, I have decided to fail the GA nomination for the following reasons:

  • Many of the images lack either a Fair Use Rationale and/or fail to cite their source. Additionally, some of the Fair Use rationales that are given are not sufficient (like the gravelings images). Consider using Template:Non-free media rationale or at least address those points in text/bullet points of your own.
  • Fair-Use images are not allowed in galleries or lists, so the DVD releases sections will have to be revised a bit. (see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information)
  • The article should be referenced more thoroughly. For instance the Gravelings section has no references at all. Ideally every new thought should have a citation. So, this would at least entail a reference per paragraph.
  • The formating of the references is inconsistent. My suggestion would be to use citation templates, though this is not required of a GA article. (The good thing about using the citation templates, is that it makes it really easy to cite in-universe facts/plot points using the {{cite episode}} template) As an examples I've stumbled upon recently, check out the references section in Final Fantasy VIII article. I know it's a video game and this is a tv show, but I think it would serve as a good example of reference style, since it does a good job of quoting the characters themselves as sources of in-universe information.
  • The article is almost completely in-universe. That is to say, except for a brief mention of the show's inspiration and creators in the intro and a section about the movie, there is no information about the television series, only the characters, concepts, and ideas within the fictional world. What about the creators? Writers? Ratings? Awards? etc.
  • The Cast and characters section is a bit bloated. There is already a link to the List of Dead Like Me characters page, so there is no reason to include 3/4 of that page on this one. Stick to the primary characters and let the main article link do the rest.
  • The Reapers sections is also a bit bloated. It isn't neccessary to go into every little detail. I'd recommend reducing it to the size of the Gravelings section, but that's just my recommendation.
  • The Gravelings section also seems a wee bit too big. What might help alleviate this problem at least a little bit (and the one above) is to use the {{cite episode}} template (as mentioned in the 4th bullet point down). That would allow you to take out all the instances of "In the episode "Blah Blah" we learn this..."
  • The introduction does not effectively summarize the article. Readers should read the into to gain a quick synopsis of the article: points which are then expounded upon below. Conversely, the intro brings up topics which the rest of the article does not address (such as departure of Bryan Fuller).
  • Speaking of Bryan Fuller, it sounds like there was some drama there, so let's hear more about. I'm curious about that most of all.
  • I think the DVD releases section could be included in the Episodes section. (After the images are taken out, of course)
  • As for the prose style of the article, it's decent, though a bit wordy and overly detailed. However it is very clear and easy to understand, so kudos there.

Overall it is a decent article, but still needs some work to reach GA status. If you have any questions feel free to ask here or on my talk Page. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article (good job!) I personally did not believe it to be ready yet either. Eventually it would be nice to get this article (of a brilliant television series) to GA. :) Matthew 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll take on these tasks and see what I can do. Once again, thanks for the review. Stormin' Foreman 08:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy to help you guys. If you need anything let me know. Drewcifer3000 09:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New nomination

In one week (August 25) I am going to renominate this article for GA status... Any objections? Stormin' Foreman 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

None at all. Although you should un-strike the bullet points from the previous GA review I gave, so that whoever reviews the article next can see my comments. Instead, you can say in your nomination that you feel that you've fixed the issues raised in a previous review, or something like that. Good luck! Drewcifer3000 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sci Fi Channel

Why is there no mention of the series "second run" on the Sci Fi Channel? I think this was significant, as the series was opened to a whole new, larger audience. Ursasapien (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a quick, sourced mention of the SCI FI reruns to the intro paragraph. —Adavidb 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I have reviewed this article, and do not believe it to meet good article standards for the following reasons:

  1. There are too many interpretive claims in the article that are not backed to any source. "Delores Herbig becomes the supportive, maternal figure that George never had when alive." "it is possible that Crystal is a reaper" and "she might have some kind of implied special power or connection that is recognizable by gravelings" require more clear attributions - who thinks these things are possible? Who is making these interpretations?
  2. There is still too much in-universe material. The "reapers" and "gravelings" sections should be judiciously edited down, and other sections (reception, production) expanded.
  3. Overuse of fair use images. I see no reason why both Graveling images are necessary, and the main image illustrates nothing that is not illustrated by the cast photo, as the cast photo also has the logo.

Good luck revising the article. I look forward to reading it again. Phil Sandifer 16:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Actors

Who is the actress that plays "Mildred" as supposed to George. i.e. the person other people see? Shouldn't that also be added as well? Also the part on how people become reapers, and how people stop being reapers should be added as either one or two sentences. That should make it less in-universe.--204.102.211.115 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe a separate paragraph is warranted, I added a sourced sentence in the Grim reapers section about Laura Boddington's role as the character you mentioned. —Adavidb 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA 2 - initial comments - on hold

The article is looks smart, but I observe the following that would need fixing before GA:

  • It lacks a production section. There is a 'behind the scenes', but two of the subsections within that belongs in a 'Reception' section.
  • Tense in first sentence: was > is. The show still exists.
  • Article lacks a 'Reception' section. What was the critical reaction? What were the reviews like. Include negative as well as positive comments. There is a large imbalance between the writing about the plot of the show, and about real-world issues (Production, reviews). The extra features on the DVDs might provide some useful material and references.
  • Avoid short sections such as 'Direct-to-DVD film'
  • Are the bullet points in 'Cast and characters' necessary? For example, see Only Fools and Horses, which is a featured article.
  • ref tags should follow immediately from punctuation, without a space.

I'm putting the article on hold. Good luck. The JPStalk to me 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the tense and made some other changes. On the subject of the bullet points, personally I'd prefer that they stay, primarily because I think that it makes it slightly neater. It wouldn't cause me any bother if they were removed though. Matthew 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been searching for other info such as production, ratings, and critic reviews ever since the first failed nomination and have been unable to find anything. I believe the main reason for this may be because the show debuted over four years ago and many of the sites with the needed information no longer exist.
  • What do you suggest about the "Direct-to-DVD film" section? We can't really remove it as it is important to the article, but we can't really expand it because the information that is known to us is in the main article.
  • I agree with Matthew. The bullet points do seem to make that section neater and easier to read. Stormin' Foreman 02:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
One option might be to put what's now in the separate "Direct-to-DVD film" section at the end of the "DVD Releases" subsection. —Adavidb 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I was always iffy about both of those sections. Also (and this is just my opinion) would it be possible to make the DVD table more horizontal rather than vertical? Ususually, when something is released at multiple dates in multiple places, we put the earliest one. I know it says that somewhere, I'm just not sure where. That would help un-stack the table and make it a little bit easier to read. Drewcifer 05:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to rearrange the table, it took me forever to figure out how to remove the DVD images from the first nomination. LOL Stormin' Foreman 05:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
alright, well I'm alright with tables, I'll give it a shot. Feel free to revert it if you don't like it. Drewcifer 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did it, but it didn't change much. It's a little bit better though. Drewcifer 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd lose the subheading for such a short section. There's no harm in duplicating some content from the main article if it enhances this. I'm concerned about the lack of reviews: reliable sources should sill exist (newspaper sites, etc.) [1] The JPStalk to me 09:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to section "Grim reapers"

In the section where the grim reaper's special abilities are described, someone could add the information that grim reaper Roxy in one episode pulls the soul out of a guys body to intimidate him. During that, the guy is able to see his own body standing still in a zombie-like way while Roxy is holding his "soul body" up in the air. She then puts the soul back into the guy's body and regrets having done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.219.23 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)