Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Borisblue (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 8 October 2006 (withdraw object). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Over the past few weeks, myself and other wikipedians have been doing some work towards improving the article. We have drawn a lot from other featured articles on TV series and used standards of Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Television as a guide. There was a peer review that produced several suggestions, which can be seen here.

Note on article size: The text itself is 36kb, and 6000 words not counting the references section (it can be seen in it's raw form without markup here). It looks larger (70kb) in edit view because of the amount of markup. Although this is a little big, none of the individual sections in the article seem to me to be overly long?

It would be appreciated if people could be very specific about any issues they have with the article, so that such obstacles can be overcome. -- Paxomen 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL: I forgot to mention, that my hoping was that if this article becomes featured, that it might appear on the front page on March 10 2007. That date marks the 10th anniversary of the airing of the premiere Buffy episode ("Welcome to the Hellmouth" was first seen on March 10 1997). There won't be another date as important to the series until March 10 2017, and humanity might have destroyed itself by then! -- Paxomen 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see the article featured asap. March is a long way off and the article MIGHT deteriorate. Arguably you can find an anniversary date for anything (I was finally convinced there was something in the series when a certain vampire was killed). Xiner 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From a quick glance, too many images, but it seems I'm in for a nice read. Wiki-newbie 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I have addressed this (see below Peta's comment).-- Paxomen 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, It's a very good article, well written, and Buffy's impact is an incredibly notable topic spanning beyond the details of the TV show itself. ~Zythe 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, This article is very well written and comprehensive, and I believe that the topic is definitely noteworthy. One suggestion - in the discussion of supporting characters, I like that it has evolved from a list into more flowing sentences, but last time I checked not all the sentences looked complete - maybe somebody could check that out. Riverbend 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a few copyedits over, and have hopefully improved the fluidity of the section? -- Paxomen 02:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Great job. I had already gone back and done some minor stuff with some blatantly incomplete sentences, and it looks even better now that you've been through it. Thanks for all you hard work on the page! Riverbend 19:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing. THere are still some really short paragraphs, in so many places it seems like they could be pulled together into larger paragraphs. This had been mentioned in someone else's comments and crossed off without being completely fixed. I don't think I saw 1 sentence paragraphs, but some that were 2 sentences. I am pulling a few together, take a look and see what else can be combined. Riverbend 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• One more thing. There is a messed-up comma under the Parodies section, after Once More, With Hobbits. I couldn't figure out how to fix it. Riverbend 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Another thing. In the spin-off section about Angel, it says that characters make guest appearances, and I think actors make guest appearances, not characters. Someone might want to alter that a little, or I will get to it later, I just wasn't sure how to do it without making the paragraph awkward. Riverbend 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• WHen it talks about main characters, it links to the article on main characters, which repeates almost EXACTLY the same info as it had on the previous page. This seems really redundant, I think that it should either have different, more extensive information on the second page, or no second page at all - I can't see how it is justifiable to have the same basic stuff twice. Riverbend 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• The section called "Cultural References" seems mistitled. Would it work to change it to something like "References in Pop Culture"? Well, I kinda see that it has both references to pop culture and references from pop culture. . . Any ideas, or is it OK as is? Riverbend 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"In 2005, a Trans-Neptunian object 2004 XR₁₉₀ was unofficially named "Buffy", after the main character of the series.("Strange new object found at edge of Solar System")

Does this count as 'pop culture' or just 'culture'? -- Buffyverse 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just culture, I guess. Good point - i rescind my comment!Riverbend 14:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• The final footnote (90?) has a typo - 100 Greatest Musical should be 100 Greatest MusicalsRiverbend 20:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Under inspirations and metaphors, it says: "The love affair between the vampire Angel and Buffy was fraught with metaphors." And then it mentions one metaphor, and I don't think there really were others. Maybe that sentence could be reworded so that "fraught with metaphors" could be replaced by something more accurate, or a couple other metaphors could be mentioned. Riverbend 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write those words but off the top of my head I know in season 3 they were used as a metaphor for religious couples who weren't allowed sex (Buffy and Angel weren't allowed to get too close because of Angel's fears he would very literally "lose his soul"), I believe the writers comment on this metaphor in one of Season 3 DVD featurettes. Also it's likely that they were used as a metaphor for the tragically incompatible couple early on in the series when so much was made of "I'm a vampire slayer and I really like him, but he's a vampire, oh, the tragedy". There was definitly some metaphor going on during the 'biting' scene in Graduation Day II, though I'm not going to spell it out for anyone, go watch the episode (I also have vague reccollections of the writers commenting on this somewhere :) Angelus was also used to represent a stalker in some of the unsettling parts of season 2. Some of this info could be properly sourced and cited with evidence, but that maybe overkill, isn't one example enough? -- Buffyverse 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I agree that putting lots more examples in would be overkill, after thinking about it I added "For example, . . ." before describing that one example, and am satisfied!! Riverbend 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• The headings are inconsistent - some capitalize all the main words, others only capitalize the first word. Riverbend 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I like this show during its peak of popularity. Just by the quick glance of this article, there are so many 1 sentence paragraphs, which just doesn't look right for "encyclopedia" article. In addition, so many fair use copyright images that don't have rational information and is it necessary to show the Warner Bros. Network logo? The Misplaced Pages's copyright police volunteers will probably disagree with the usage of the logo in this article. --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed WB logo. Also fixed started to fix the 1 sentence paragraphs -- Paxomen 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My "concerns" for this article have been resolved. --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I have addressed the image issue (see below Peta's comment). The article has also undergone a lot of copyediting since 21 Septemeber, and the 1 sentence paragraphs are nonexistent. -- Paxomen 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is referenced, which is a good start, so hopefully its fatal flaws can be fixed. The Table of Contents is overwhelming and rambling, reflecting a lack of focus in the article, which has numerous short stubby sections and one sentence paragraphs. The article needs a reorganization before it will be ready for FAC. Sandy 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Started to fix one sentence paragraphs. -- Paxomen 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One sentence paragraphs fixed thanks to numerous editors, and there has been a bit of a reorganisation of the article (certain sections renamed/moved) to make it non rambling. -- Paxomen 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - The impact of Buffy on popular culture is great and the article is a good candidate for becoming a featured article.--NeilEvans 19:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A good article, but it's definitely not featured article quality yet:

1. Dates containing a month and a day should be linked to so readers' date preferences can work.
2. The article needs a thorough copyedit; it is far from well written at the moment. I noticed many errors in the use of punctuation, the prose needs work to eliminate redundant words (I'm not mad on the frequent use of "However" and "also") and merge short, choppy sentences, and the article as a whole (and the "Plot" section in particular) reads awkwardly. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for some valuable advice. Please get rid of "creative" writing, e.g. "the ratings were great", "Buffy in a typical stance, which is anything but helpless", "Angel seems like a different person to Buffy after they sleep together", " is soon drawn to the dark side", referring to Angel as Buffy's "true love" etc. Passive voice comes up often, and I saw several typos in there too.
3. I don't know if the Manual of Style recommends placing footnotes before or after punctuation marks, but please use a consistent format.
4. Do readers need to know what Joss Whedon's inspiration for the name of Mutant Enemy Productions was, or that it shares its name with Whedon's typewriter?
5. "Breaking the story means organizing it into acts and scenes" - I assume Jane Espenson said this, but that needs to be made clearer.
6. The second paragraph of "Writing" should be in past tense, because Buffy has ended.
7. Character names shouldn't be in quotation marks.
8. The "Casting" section contains a little too much detail about the cast members' pre-Buffy careers.
9. "The use of pop culture songs rarely featured beyond the background" - this is vague and needs rewriting.
10. It seems odd to title a section "The show"; one would think the entire article is about "the show". I suggest changing it to "Content" or something similar.
11. "in one memorable episode" - this is POV.
12. "The Hellmouth is officially closed for business" - this needs attributing to whichever character said it.
13. "In another departure from the usual conventions of television, Xander was notable for being an insecure and subordinate male in a world dominated by powerful females" - without a footnote that attributes this to a source, it looks like editorial opinion.
14. The "Recurring and minor characters" and "Merchandise" sections are only a paragraph long each. They should be expanded or merged into neighbouring sections.
15. "The popularity of the Buffy has led to countless websites..." - "countless" suggests there is an infinite number, which is impossible.
16. "US" should be "U.S."

Extraordinary Machine 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a few of the improvements suggested above -- Buffyverse 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did some more — OwenBlacker 08:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, please could both of you refrain from striking out other users' comments in FAC discussions. Whoever wrote the comments can do that themselves when they feel their objections have been addressed. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I've just realised that you struck out my objection about the inconsistent formatting of footnotes, when there are still some placed before punctuation marks and some placed after. It's good that some of the examples of poor writing I pointed out have been fixed, but they were just that: examples. Here's another, from the lead section: "Just before the WB network closed forever on September 17, 2006, as part of a "homage" to their "most memorable series" , the pilot episodes of Buffy, and Dawson's Creek, were the final shows ever seen on that network." The words "forever" and "ever" are redundant, there shouldn't be a space between "most memorable series" and the comma, and the commas surrounding "and Dawson's Creek" shouldn't be there. Again, there are problems like these across the article; the prose is hardly "compelling, even brilliant". Extraordinary Machine 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help make the article better by giving advice on its shortcomings. I (and others) have been editing the article over the past few days. Am I right in saying that points 3, 7, 8 (I cut the casting section in half), 9, 11, 12 and 13 have been addressed? -- Paxomen 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to address my concerns; the improvements impress me. Some of the quotes around character names are still there, though, and there are remaining problems with the prose, including the punctuation. For example, "The use of pop culture songs rarely featured beyond the background" has been changed to "The use of pop culture songs by famous artists rarely featured prominently". It should probably be "The use of pop songs by famous artists was rarely prominent" or "Pop songs by famous artists were rarely featured prominently"; I've dropped the "pop culture song" reference because it implies the songs are about pop culture. There's still a problem with choppy sentences, such as in this example: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer first aired on March 10, 1997 on the WB network. Buffy is credited with playing a key role in the growth of the Warner Brothers television network in its early years." could be changed to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer first aired on March 10, 1997 on the WB network, and it is credited with playing a key role in the growth of the network in its early years."

Angel shouldn't be referred to as "tall, dark and handsome", and him losing his soul after sex shouldn't be called the "most noteworthy" metaphorical element of his relationship with Buffy; without being attributed to sources, these statements imply a POV. I'm not sure about the statement "Xander provided comic relief as well as a grounded, everyman perspective in the supernatural Buffyverse"; it seems like original research to me. It isn't made clear how it is "inevitable" that Buffy encounters her Watcher at the beginning of the series. I know how difficult it can be to spot things like this when you've worked on the text so much, so I suggest you ask someone who is unfamiliar with the article to give it a good copyedit. Extraordinary Machine 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

All the changes suggested above have been made. I think the prose is good, but know there's room for improvement & I agree this article would benefit from someone copyediting it who is not familiar with it. I might try printing it out and getting some people to read through it specifically for grammar/language. I believe points 4, 7, and 9 been solved. -- Paxomen 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I printed the article, and got someone to read over it for language - to remove some redundancies, improve flow.. see changes -- Paxomen 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose excessive use of fair use media, most without fair use rationales. Please read WP:FUC and remove those tha are just used as decoration.--Peta 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Images reform in the article

Based on advice from you, (and before you Wiki-newbie & Oskar Mayer Nguyener whose comments can be seen above), I recently overhauled the use of images at Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Originally there were 24 images in the article. 17 images have been removed in the past few days. That means that the article has only 7 fair use images left (and two free use ones). The remaining fair use images have been given detailed rationales on their respective pages. The seven images left are all very low resolution (I personally replaced high resolution ones with low resolution versions), and are (not in order):

Screenshots