Talk:Mythology of Carnivàle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Mythology of Carnivàle has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Mythology of Carnivàle is part of the "Carnivàle" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Pre-comment for GA review

Dear GA reviewer, to prevent a quick-fail based on the reasoning that forum posts are unreliable sources, I'd like to point out that the used forum posts are by the creator of the show and that no better sources are available (as you will probably notice once you read the "Reception, interpretation and legacy" section); no companion books were ever published for this TV show, and useful DVD extras were scarce.

Furthermore, the "Avatars" section is pretty much a sub-article of Characters of Carnivàle (which in turn is a sub-article of Carnivàle), whereas the "Historical and cultural allusions" section is a subarticle of Carnivàle and a little of List of Carnivàle episodes. So, in the event that some of the things in this Mythology article seem completely confusing, it is likely that you will find the context in the "mother" articles (although I tried to keep this context problem to a minimum). If there are any other issues with the article that you would like to see fixed, please put the article on Hold instead of Failing immediately. I'll try to address any concerns as fast as humanly possible. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-GA review notes to self

  • Good article -- 7 images used:
  1. Image:Sanmichele satana raffaello.jpg from Commons
  2. Image:Dust-storm-Texas-1935.png from Commons
  3. Image:Carnivale Knights Templar Symbol.png from Commons
  4. Image:Trinity tower.jpg from Commons
  5. Image:Tarot Moon Brown Dye.jpg from Commons
  6. Image:Gospel of Matthias Carnivale.jpg fair-use with detailed rationale on image page
  7. Image:Carnivale Tattooed Man Sketch.jpg fair-use with detailed rationale on image page

The images check out okay. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written pretty darn well, considering the extremely complex subject material. I strongly suggest WP:LOCE and WP:PR as next steps, to make sure to clarify some bits of in-universe language/context, but overall it's pretty comprehensible.
2. Factually accurate?: Extensively well-sourced. And I agree with the "Pre-GA" note above - comments that are verifiable to Daniel Knauf would seem to be appropriate, similar to something like a hosted online chat. (As long as this is indeed verifiable.)
3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough.
4. Neutral point of view?: Wording is written in a neutral manner.
5. Article stability? Edit history checks out going back four months. Good civil discourse on talk page and edit summaries.
6. Images?: As noted above, 7 images used - 5 from WikiCommons, and 2 with very detailed fair use rationales.

Great work. Again, I'd suggest WP:LOCE and WP:PR - and get some additional people to read through the article, perhaps some non-Wikipedians - to just be an extra check for comprehensibility and in-universe language. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The in-universe bits are just some leftovers from a very recent major copyedit, which happened after another GA reviewer (User:Ling.Nut) had hinted at in-universe prose problems in another Carnivàle GAC. I've already organized a copyedit with a fellow editor to straighten out the remaining issues, which will probably happen next week. Again, thanks for your thorough review and your time. – sgeureka t•c 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belated FAC review

Pretty good so far, very detailed. I would suggest a copyedit from several uninvolved editors. Here's a first batch of comments.

  • In the lede: Show creator Daniel Knauf did not respond to questions about the mythology so that many of the intended clues remained unnoticed by viewers. Knauf provided hints about the mythological structure to online fandom both during and after the two-season run of Carnivàle. I'm thinking rephrase to: Show creator Daniel Knauf did not respond to questions about the show's mythology but did provided certain hints about the mythological structure to online fandom both during and after the two-season run of Carnivàles; many of the intended clues remained unnoticed by viewers. Or something like that because there appears to be a contradiction in "did not respond to questions" but "provided certain hints".-BillDeanCarter (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why use the Internet Archive for some of the references (themidway.org is still online, as are the articles there; it doesn't really matter, but was the web site down for a while or occasionally?)
  • Is there any mention archangels in reviews or other documents? (I'm thinking of the radio message to the prisoner, with some wording about archangels) Perhaps you could write a sentence about them if appropriate and wikilink to archangel?
  • Free choice allows the story to have Avatars refrain from using of their powers or even act contrary to their nature; an Avatar would however still have to put consistent effort into not lapsing back into his defined moral behavior. This sentence needs a copyedit.
  • Ben can heal and resurrect beings at the cost of others' life, perhaps... at the cost of another's life?
  • in Ben's and Brother Justin's continued shared dreams chasing Henry Scudder in a cornfield, perhaps... in Ben and Brother Justin's common recurring dream of each of themselves chasing Henry Scudder in a cornfield, ...

Following comments review part of the Historical and cultural allusions section.

  • Samson's monologue in the pilot episode is based on a segment in the facing sheet of the Pitch Document that was initially not planned to be performed. is the facing sheet the cover sheet? I would rephrase this sentence to be more clear about what this segment was? several scenes, or a monologue or something in between?
  • He however thought that the visions made Brother Justin feel on a righteous mission of God until late in the first season. use another verb other than feel.

For the Terms and order of succession section:

  • Daniel Knauf made the Avatars of the fictional universe succumb to an elaborate order of succession by blood, similar to... why do you use the verb succumb?
Thank your for the thorough review and your copyedit. I'll try to implement your suggested changes when I am finished with my current wiki task so that my mind is free to do this right. :-) – sgeureka t•c 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional tarot card in "Carnivale"

In "Carnivale" episode "Ingram, Tx" Ben finds a card from the burned Tarot deck. It is "Le Passeur" (French word which can be translated as "The Usher") - a Major Arcana card with number 23 (Tarot has twenty-two Major Arcana but they are numbered 0-21, so the number is most probably connected with so called "23 Enigma" of numerology. It would be great if someone added a note about it to the Tarot part in Mythology of Carnivale - I'm not sure if my English is good enough to do it myself. (JeRzy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.34.7 (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research does not allow the addition of analysis without a reliable source with that analysis. This article is currently a Good Article, so it might lose its status if we included your suggestion. But don't feel discouraged to make other suggestions for improvement. A pair of fresh eyes always helps. – sgeureka t•c 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on the Good Article Nomination, but....

I still think there's some problems with the article. I expressed these in a general sense in an earlier version of the talk page but I'll express a few points here. First, I'd rework at leas the opening of the "Terms and Order of Succession" section. As is, that part is needlessly confusing. There's an extensive section comparing real world terms for royalty with the various terms from Carnivale. That seems unnecessary. Just talk about the succession within the show. Second, there's several references to viewers "not being sure" which character was good and which was evil. Now maybe I'm either smarter or dumber than other viewers (or maybe I've just got the benefit of seeing Carnivale on DVD after it originally aired) but to me it was always apparent that Justin was the Creature of Darkness and Ben was the Creature of Light. It doesn't seem that there's much ambiguity there, certainly not to the point which merits repeated reference in the article. Thirdly, and related to my second point, there's several bits of info that repeated several times throughout the article (the good vs evil nature of the Avatars, the blue blood, etc). While some these, such as the mental illness of many women who have borne avatars, are worked into the article well, others just stand out awkwardly and seem to have no reason for being repeated. Why not condense these into one section? Finally, I again take exception to the lengthy, and somewhat puzzling, "reception" section. To start with the section is very oddly written with phrases like "Reviewers of the first three episodes interpreted Carnivàle's story as being full of myth and allegory." But the story WAS full of myth and allegory. So I'm not quite sure what this sentence is trying to say. While strictly factually accurate, in that the reviewers DID interpret Carnivale and DID, presumably, see it that way, the meaning is just odd. After all we wouldn't say "reviewers of the first three episodes interpreted Carnivale as being performed in English" or "interpreted Carnivale as being set in the Depression." Much of the language in that section is similarly confusing. Overall I think the section suffers from not being able to answer the "so what question." Why is this section even here? Why do we care that reviewers saw it as "cloudy", "unconventional" and filled with "convoluted symbolic interpretations"? Or that they "quoted and commented on Samson's prologue"? I'm unsure what purpose this serves in the mythology article. Is it to highlight that these elements of mythology might be considered fanon? If so then that needs to be MUCH clearer in the article. If not I'd say just delete that whole section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, so it needs some real-world perspective instead of just diving into the fictional mythology.
  2. You are probably smart, because it was not obvious to me at all who was good and who was evil until I listened to the audio commentaries, never mind knowing that the show was about good and evil in the first place. Many reviewers have felt the same, so that's what wikipedia reports.
  3. "Reviewers of the first three episodes interpreted Carnivàle's story as being full of myth and allegory." But the story WAS full of myth and allegory. - Point taken. The reasoning behind such wording was that just because someone thinks that it is, doesn't mean it is.
  4. Why do we care that reviewers saw it as "cloudy"... - because otherwise the article would not have any third-party references and would be deleted for being WP:CRUFT without established WP:NOTABILITY. So even though reviewers were dumb (like me), I'd rather have that stupid section than no article. Curse wiki politics.
  5. WP:SOFIXIT.
– sgeureka t•c 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)