Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/True Detective (season 1)/archive6

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 [1].

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new year, a new nomination! This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy. But fortunately, unlike its other four nominations, the article received great attention in its most recent nomination and improved even further in quality. I've been working on this article on and off for well over a year, and at this point, I am more than confident that it satisfy the FA criteria. Will the sixth time be the charm? I sure as hell hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

@DAP388: I believe that this article has benefited greatly from the past peer reviews and FACs. I will have to echo some of Mike Christie's points from the previous FAC. I do not have an issue with the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim" as I personally do not have find it to be misleading. I do agree with Mike Christie's point (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the "Reviews" subsection comes across a little like a list of reviews and quotes. There is a lot of the same sentence structure: X says Y. Maybe varying up the sentence structures to make transitions and tie everything together into a compact narrative on the show's reception (I am always terrible at this part and you have done a much better job already than I could have ever done). You could look at Mike Christie's resource on copyediting reception sections here for a better idea of what I mean. I honestly think that this is the only thing standing in the way of this article reaching the level of an FA as everything else is very well done. Once, this specific subsection is revised, then I would gladly support this FAC. Good luck getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I'm afraid this FAC has rather stalled, and there has been little comment in over a month. The kindest thing is probably to archive this now and renominate when two weeks have passed. I would recommend trying to drum up some reviews, either at PR or on the article talk page, by approaching a few editors directly before nominating again. Having had recent reviews with an eye to FA criteria often speeds up the review process. It would also be worth approaching editors who have commented at previous FACs and (neutrally) asking them for comments before you nominate again; reviewers tend to appreciate it when you can demonstrate what steps have been taken to improve the article since previous FACs. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.