Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swift Justice/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [1].

Swift Justice

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American detective drama television series, created by Dick Wolf, which aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from March 13 to July 17, 1996. It follows a former Navy SEAL Mac Swift (James McCaffrey), who becomes a private investigator after being fired from the New York City Police Department. He is supported by his former partner Detective Randall Patterson (Gary Dourdan) and his father Al Swift (Len Cariou). Television critics had noted Swift Justice's emphasis on violence, specifically in the pilot episode's opening sequence. While some commentators praised the series for its visuals and cast, others criticized its storylines as either too violent or formulaic.

This is yet another one of my nominations about an obscure television show. This is my eighth nomination about a UPN series. For anyone interested, this is how the article looked prior to my expansion. Hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • @Nikkimaria: Could you explain why it does not make sense? I have used the same explanation for previous FACs on television shows. I had intended for it to mean that the image is still under copyright by either the production company or distributor so a free image is not available as a viable replacement. I am uncertain about using {{PD-ineligible}}, as I imagine that the image may still be under a copyright by someone regardless of its simplicity. I am unfamiliar with the process, so apologies if I am mistaken. Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan

[edit]

I read the article and it seems to meet all the criteria despite being short. Great prose quality and reliable sourcing, no formatting issues either.--NØ 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support, and I understand your concern about the length. I did a search for additional sources prior to this nomination, and I unfortunately could not find anything new. Thank you again Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kailash

[edit]

All my comments were addressed in the previous FAC. Here, just the remaining links may be archived to avoid link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damien Linnane

[edit]

Already familiar with this one as I did the GA review. I'm satisfied it also meets the criteria for FAC. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

[edit]
  • I think you should include release year(s) for The Equalizer in the lead
  • I don't think a storyline can be "violent"; it sounds quite awkward to me. I don't know how others feel though
  • I consider the word "hooker" inappropriate for encyclopedic language

The rest of the article looks in good shape. Once my concerns are resolved, I will voice my support :) — HĐ (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Did a quick source review and I am confident this articles passes the review since:

  • All urls are from reliable sources.
  • All references share the same design.
  • There are multiple archiveurls in the case the urls stop existing.

Nice work with the article Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheDoctorWho

[edit]

As an active contributor to television articles this article looks fantastic! Just one suggestion for @Aoba47:, it's not required but in the {{episode table}} I recommend using |airdateR= instead of repeating the same ref 19 times. I also have one quick question, the infobox says that the runtime is 60 minutes, is that with or without commercials? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheDoctorWho: Thank you! I really try my best when it comes to these articles. I have revised the episode table according to your suggestion. I always wondered about that, so thank you for letting me know about it. I believe the runtime is with commercials. I can add that to the infobox if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the infobox instructions (Template:Infobox television) the runtime should be without commercials so it should just be updated accordingly, other than that everything is great! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Whoops, one more thing I noticed, in multiple YouTube videos of episodes ("Out on a Limb", "No Holds Barred", "Where Were You in '72?") the opening credits read "Created By Dick Wolf & Richard Albarino" is there any reason why only Wolf is credited in the infobox? (All of those also credit Wolf as executive producer so it's probably safe to use |executive_producer = in the infobox.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Richard Albarino was not mentioned in the sources that I initially found for the article, but I have added a source with him to the article and updated the info. Aoba47 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

I can't see anything to pick up on this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Just skimming this nomination and the article, I see we have several supports but we'll need to see some more thorough prose review in evidence. Just in a lead I see awkward comma usage and a which–that error (I realize they are generally interchangeable for restrictive clauses in British English but I'm assuming the intent is for this to be written in American English). Needs more work and review. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]

I know nothing about these kind of articles at all, or indeed about the program. I'm here because of Laserbrain's appel de coeur above  :) the bonus is that I come to the article fresh and as a WP:READER rather than an expert, but of course downside, that I am generally unaware of all but policy-based approaches to this article type.

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • How about dropping the second City from New York in the lead? I think by then the location's clear, and it avoids repetition of "city".
  • Revised. That makes sense to me since the city was already clarified in the previous part.
  • "specifically in the pilot episode"—perhaps, "particularly in..." as I assume they critiqued other episodes too?
  • To the best of my knowledge, a majority of the reviews were published when the show first debuted, and the pilot episode was the only one singled out during reviews. Other than the critiques of the pilot episode, the criticism was relatively generic toward the show (i.e. aimed at the show as a whole rather than specific episodes or scenes outside the pilot). Let me know if that makes sense. I will look through the sources again though later tonight to check and see if other episodes are mentioned by name. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about tightening the run on sentence into "...in the pilot episode's opening sequence, comparing the show to the crime drama The Equalizer".
  • "critics on its violent scene"—of its
  • "Wolf said UPN executives later considered this cancellation" or "Wolf later said UPN executives considered this cancellation"?
  • "others criticized it as either too violent or formulaic"—as being.
(Interlude)
  • Though about a section for "cast and characters"? For a start, it would enable you to mention all the lesser / walk-on parts (re: WP:FA? #1b: comprehensiveness), also, the text as is regularly broken up by *character (actor)*. This would enable you to use character names in the plot section and tighten the prose.
  • I do not think a separate "Cast and characters" section is necessary for this article. There are only three main characters (Mac, Randall, and Al) for the show. Skipp Sudduth and Kim Dickens only appear in the pilot episode (and play rather important parts for kickstarting the main storyline of the show). I have only included guest stars that were mentioned by reliable, third-party sources. I do not see a reason to list all the lesser / walk-on parts as you suggest above because it would border on trivia in my opinion. How would it really add to the reader's knowledge/understanding of the show to see an exhaustive list of all of the guest stars for a series? It just seems unnecessary to me, as the focus should be kept on the lead characters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would better to keep the sections together as it keeps things more streamlined in my opinion. I do not see an issue with having the actor's name in parenthesis by the character, and I have done that structure in several of my past featured articles on television shows. I am open to further discussion on this, but I do not see the value in a "Cast and characters" section. I understand its use in film articles, and I have only used it in one of my previous television FACs and that is because there was more critical and cast commentary on the characters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premise and characters
  • "Mac is frequently challenged"—details? How does he get challenged? This could range anywhere from doing a crossword in the fastest time to being asked outside for a fight.
  • "and his other superiors"—don't need the second "his"; could subsequently lose that comma too.
  • "including Andrew Coffin"—who and what is the subtly-named Andy Coffin?
  • He is one of Mac's superiors in the NYPD. I thought it was clear from the context (other superiors, including Andrew Coffin (Giancarlo Esposito).).
  • "Mac is assisted"—Mac is aided?
  • "his partner and best friend"—purely stylistic, but I'm sure I've heard "his best friend and partner" more often  :)
  • The sentence about Lethal Weapon (by the way, you reviewer today is definitely Too Old For This Sh*t™), perhaps bounce it down to that fourth para dealing with views? It breaks up the plot.
  • Moved down. I must admit that I am not necessarily a fan of this show myself. It is certainly not bad (as I have seen far worse television shows), but it was never going to be my personal favorite. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of plot; could we be a bit more fulsome on it? If each episode that you list had its own article this might not mater so much, but, as it is—and considering this is a cop show which rustled critics feathers—we're currently a bit light on details. Not necessarily gory details; but as it stands, you currently sum up 13 hours of television in <300 words. I suggest—if the sources allow it—splitting this into two separate "Plot" and "Character" sections.
  • I used the "Premise and characters" section to convey the basic premise and overarching storyline of the show. I have only include brief summaries in the "Episodes" section since there are only a limited amount of episodes available online. I think one or two episodes are missing so it would be a little odd and mess with the cohesiveness to have longer plot summaries for some episodes and smaller ones for others. Again, I see no reason for separate "Plot" and "Character" sections. There are only three main characters so that would be a very short section, and I think it would be better to keep everything together to make the information more cohesive and flow together rather than break everything up. I have revised the "Premise and characters" section to be a little more cohesive in terms of the flow, but I am opposed to starting a "Character" section as it seems very unnecessary in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come tomorrow, touch wood. ——SerialNumber54129 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Apologies for pinging you again, but I just wanted to check in on your progress with this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DarkWarriorBlake

[edit]
  • Is there any information regarding why it only aired for one season?
  • There's a critical reception section, but there is also some critical reception in the "Premise and characters" subsection. Is there a reason it's not under Critical Reception too?
  • I would not described the information in the "Premise and characters" subsection as critical reception. I added that part to the section to help the reader better understand the show's story, characters, and overall tone. I do not identify those parts as reviews because they are not making comparisons to say the show is necessarily good or bad. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the genre of Die Hard as an action film, most people know what it is but for the uninformed it helps them understand why it is being compared to Die Hard
  • On a similar note, how was it compared to Die Hard.
  • Did the show leave any kind of legacy? Dick Wolf has a tonne of shows on now, did it blow back against him or anything? Or the cast?
  • The best thing that I can find about the show's legacy is the interview in which Wolf said that UPN considered the cancellation a mistake and Ice-T being cast in some of his later stuff, but that is about it to the best of my knowledge. I think the show has primarily been forgotten by most critics and people in general. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my bad, I completely glossed over the cancelled sentence because I was looking for it in the later sections. I take your point on the Production part mentioning critics. While it's making comparisons I feel would be ok in the reception section, you're using it in a different context to describe what the show is. I'm fine with that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and I greatly appreciate your comments/suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Aoba, I hope you're well. Here are a few comments from me:

  • The lead and Premise and characters sections seem pretty good. I'm just wondering whether the sentence "He sets up an email address to receive messages from his clients" really adds anything or could possibly be removed.
  • I think it is useful as it appears to be a somewhat important plot point. Mac is portrayed as using technology during his cases, and remember that the show is set in the mid-1990s so email was a pretty big technological development back then. I understand your point, but I think it matters because of context. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mac is financially stable due to royalty payments from software he had developed." Seems like "has developed" would likely be more natural, unless possibly you have special reason to emphasize it occurred before the other stuff in the narrative.
  • Agreed. Revised. I am always bad with has/had constructions so I should look into that more in the future. As weird as it may sound, I may be slightly more familiar with grammar of other languages because I was more aware of it when learning those lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rick Marotta produced the music that Variety's Todd Everett described as "all synthesizers and percussion"; Marotta praised the soundtrack as a positive aspect of the series": I haven't read the source, but sounds like Mariotta is praising his own work? Also, minor suggestion, but I wonder if it could be worthwhile to paraphrase "all synthesizers and percussion".
  • In Production and broadcast history, the first part of the second paragraph has a nice flow, but it feels like the last four sentences could be condensed and/or reordered. You basically have Dupree said, Wolf said, Dupree said, Wolf said, with a fair amount of overlap over the four sentences. It feels like it could likely be condensed into a couple of sentences.
  • I'm concerned about "During a 2013 interview with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, Wolf said that UPN executives had since considered it a "cancellation error" as the network did not have another drama with ratings comparable to Swift Justice." I watched the clip and Wolf doesn't mention UPN executives, he says "I think when it was cancelled that was considered a cancellation error by everybody..." Here "everybody" sounds subjective and vague, and could mean that just more than a few people he talked to (in whatever setting) thought it was a cancellation error. Plus Wolf had a vested interest in the show from the hard work and time he put into it, and has good reason to be biased on the side of whoever may have thought the cancellation was a mistake.
  • I agree about the bias. I had tried to clarify that in the prose by emphasizing Wolf said this himself. Personally, I am not sure if I believe him. I think it is an important point to include in the article as it is the only time the show was really discussed following its cancellation (at least to the best of my knowledge). I thought he was more exact in the interview (I was probably just misremembering) so I have adjusted it to be more accurate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you change the above content (about the cancellation mistake) here, please also make sure its mention in the lead is changed correspondingly.
  • "Following the show's cancellation, Wolf hired Ice-T for the 1997 television show Players and the 1998 television film Exiled: A Law & Order Movie. Ice-T said that Wolf often collaborated with the same actors." Suggested edit: (something like) "Following the show's cancellation, when Wolf was casting for each of the television productions Players and Exiled: A Law & Order Movie in the late 1990s, he again hired Ice-T, who has noted that Wolf often collaborated with the same actors."
  • "While investigating the murder of a horse, Mac is confronted by a loan shark." I'm not sure that "murder" is commonly used for animals, but if you're confident, no worries. If there's any doubt, maybe change to "killing".
  • I am actually not sure if murder is restricted to just people or not. I have made the suggestion revision, but it is an interesting point to think about or look into. Maybe I am just used to using murder because I come from a family of criminal law attorneys lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to his death, a scientist asks his colleague to contact Mac about a case." Is there any more info available about what the case entailed? It sounds like the case itself should also be key to the plot.
  • In the table, I'm guessing "N/A" means the information was not available? (Apologies if you may have already explained this or anything else for other people's reviews—I haven't had a chance to read them.) I'm not sure, what is the standard practice in this kind of article when information is not available? I don't have a solution to propose, except that only 4/13 episodes for "US Viewers" have information available, so possibly it would be better to remove this column altogether. Another point is that I believe "N/A" means "not applicable", which is not strictly speaking precise for how it is used here. (But I'm not telling you to definitely definitely remove the column or do anything drastic with the other instances of N/A, I'm just exploring ideas with you.)
  • I am not exactly certain about the common practice myself. I could understand removing the column as long as the rating information is merged into the "Production and broadcast history" section since it is important. I am uncertain how that information could be merged into the section seamlessly, but I am more than happy to hear your suggestion. I think the N/A/ works for the director/writer credits for "Stones". To the best of my knowledge, it is one of the only episodes unavailable online. Otherwise, I would have tried to expand all of the episode summaries. Let me know what you think. I will wait to make any changes until I hear your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception first paragraph suggestions:
  • "Critics praised Swift Justice for its visuals." Suggest to mention the contrast between visuals vs. plot clichés tin this topic sentence. Everett, Johnson, and Biddle also seem to say a variation on this, so if you put this contrast in the topic sentence, the reader will better know what to expect and be able to follow the flow of ideas.
  • How about merging the Everett and Johnson sentences, something like "Todd Everett [maybe even mention Variety again here?] and the Chicago Tribune's Steve Johnson criticized the show for relying on clichés, but both liked the look of the show; Johnson wrote that the show had "a visceral, close-to-the-streets feel", and Everett that it was the most visually attractive program on UPN.
  • Then consider switching Nichols' and Biddle's comments, as Biddle's seems to be in the same vein as Johnson's and Everett's, something like "The Boston Globe's Frederic M. Biddle similarly felt the visuals alone could not carry the show, saying that... [is there possibly anything else you can add to qualify Biddle's comment?].
  • In the second paragraph, both Johnson and Gliatto talk about McCaffrey's handsomeness. For flow, it could be an idea to merge the sentences and find some common ground between what the two writers said.
  • I have revised all of the above comments on the "Critical reception" section. I am uncertain on how to comment on each one of your points without making things appear too messy so I opted for a comment at the end here, but please let me know if I missed anything or something needs further work. I have always found this type of section to be the trickiest one to write. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After you respond to these, I might possibly have one or two other mini-suggestions to make, but I think I've pretty much covered most of my ideas above. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for the suggestions above. I believe that I have addressed everything, and I am looking forward to hearing from you. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend. I actually just came back from seeing a play. I still cannot believe it is March already. Reminds me of how much work I need to get done lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. I was reading through again today and some more points jumped out at me.

  • "steals credit card numbers by running a prostitution ring": Not very clear what this means.
  • "particularly how the pilot's opening sequence": "particularly that" seems slightly more precise to me, but ignore if you disagree.
  • "Everett praised the soundtrack as a positive aspect of the series": Seems a bit wordy and fluffy. How about "Rick Marotta produced the music, which Variety's Todd Everett described as having a good synthesizer- and percussion-based sound."
  • "According to New York's Maureen Callahan, the show was a low-budget production." Would you consider moving this up and merging with an earlier sentence to be "Episodes were shot on location in New York City, to production values that New York's Maureen Callahan has characterized as "low-budget". " This would flow quite a bit better for me.
  • "Swift Justice was the first time that Gary Glasberg wrote for an hour-long television program. He referred to the experience as his "big break"." He may be famous for all I know, but I've never heard of Gary Glasberg. Could you add a little context for people like me about how Glasberg is notable—maybe add a sentence about how he went on to find fame and glory with some big hit TV shows, if applicable. More comments to come (hopefully tonight). Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your earlier edit for reducing the four sentences I mentioned about the male audience. But I would argue it's still too much, and the last sentence that Wolf says doesn't add much. Imo, Wolf comes across as kind of self-promoting and everything he says seems sort of fluffy. I think it could be fine to remove the sentence, but if you think it's important to include the 18 to 34 ages, maybe add it without giving it its own sentence, something like "Mediaweek's Scotty Dupree wrote that Swift Justice and The Sentinel were meant to attract a male audience, saying they were the only shows, aside from JAG, marketed to men on Wednesday nights;[22] Wolf specified the target (or expected?) audience of males as being aged 18 to 34." Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mac Swift investigates a man who uses a prostitution ring to steal credit card information, and he falls in love with one of the prostitutes." Here again, would be nice to have a clearer idea about the connection between the prostitution ring and how he steals the credit card info, if possible. Also, there's no mention here of the prostitute being killed, which sounds like a very important part of the plot when this is mentioned earlier. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternatively, The Boston Globe's Frederic M. Biddle felt the visuals alone could not carry the show". I don't think "alternatively" works really well here. I would suggest perhaps "By contrast".
  • I like the Biddle additions you made. Also, I forgot to mention earlier, but I liked how you changed the bits about Wolfs comment on the show's cancellation being a mistake—your change was even better than I was thinking of.
  • "Gliatto described him as "handsome, but neither too impressed nor too pretty to buy as an action lead",[4] and Bonko called him a "handsomely weathered former detective" ". Thanks for merging these into one sentence. I didn't mention it before, but I was thinking it would be even better if you paraphrased one of the two quotes. Maybe something like "attractively toughened" and no need to mention "former detective"? Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this article is really coming together, and I'm pretty sure I'm close to supporting. But it's late and I need to have one more read-through when I've got my brain power back. Will be back to look at it tomorrow. Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through again (and made a few very small edits) and am happy to support now. This is a nice article. Moisejp (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (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/Swift_Justice/archive2&oldid=1052827218"