Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost)

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 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Paulo (Lost)[edit]

Hi there, I have worked on this article about the most hated secondary character from the television series Lost, getting rid of the in-universe perspective from this to the current version. See the short, archived peer review here. Almost every sentence has a reference. I kept the recent peer review and featured article candidacy of the Desperate Housewives' supporting character Andrew Van De Kamp in mind when writing this article. Self-nominate. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak oppose - I haven't reviewed it entirely (though I did like seeing what appears to be real world content), but the most immediate thing that caught my eye was "fan response...". Fan reaction to anything is extremely hard to measure. But in the sentence, you say "fan response was mostly negative, one journalist..." Are you calling the journalist a fan, or are you attributing fan response as a separate entity? If you are using it from the journalist's words, "I hate Nikki and Paulo sentiment that I hear from fans", then it should be made clear that the journalist feels the fans don't like him. He/she doesn't give any kind of empirical measure as to how they know fans don't like him, they just say it's something they hear. It should be written to reflect that they think fans don't like Paulo, since we cannot accurately measure something like that. With 12 million viewers, it would take a really good randomized poll to even begin to assume what fans truly think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. How is the change I made from "Fan reaction was mostly negative" to "Reaction to the character was more negative than for other Lost characters?" --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you should see about finding a professional reaction to the other characters, but by the same people that deemed his character in a negative light. We need to verify that the other characters received generally positive opinions, and I'm going to assume that this is the only LOST character article that is even close to fulfilling FA requirements. Otherwise, I would just say "Reaction to the character was generally negative." Then, I would provide 2 or so citations just for that sentence alone. Next, I'd have an equal number of positive and negative reviews of the character, because you have to keep a neutral eye. Putting the extra citations at the end of the first sentence (in my opinion) shows that they did tend to len more to the negative, but for writing purposes, we have to keep it neutral. Right now, the entire section is biased to the negative. Also, there is more "fan" talk within the section. If reliable sources are claiming this about fans, make sure it's known that it was THEM they said it. Otherwise, it could come off as original research, even if it has a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paulo is a pretty minor character. He was only in seven episodes and had only ~two lines each in six of them. I do not think there is much else on the Internet about him than what has already been cited. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The episode in which he played a major role was called a good episode by quite a few "professional" columnists, however Paulo was never specifically called a good character. Where would I cite reaction to the other characters? And you are correct in that none of the other character articles are close to FA; they are all just extremely long plot summaries. I changed the word "fan" to "viewer" in the article, as well. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't even sources for people that "loved to hate him"? Sometimes people don't like the character, but not because of anything specific of the actor or how the writers make him, but because they are into the show and they don't like what he does. I don't know, it just bugs me to have a really biased reaction section to the character. It rather violates WP:NPOV, but I understand when it comes to limited viewings. I have Aquaman (TV program) up for FAC, and I have a problem with the reviews, because it was never picked up for television, so any reviews are limited and not very professional. So, I'm kind of in the same boat you are in. Anyway, I'll try and go through the article more detailed and look for specific things (like necessary copy editing, or something).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more things that should be easier to address:

  • "History" - Since he isn't "real", and that section isn't detailing the history of the character's development (i.e. how the writers came about creating him), it should probably be titled "Appearances". "Appearances" give off more of an impression that you are talking about when he appears in the show, instead of looking like a biography of the character. I would also probably reword it to be more out-of-universe. For example, in the first sentence, I'd say (and I may episodes mixed up, so you can substitute the right one) "'Further Instructions' introduced Paulo as a Brazilian con artist..." Kind of like that, but throughout that section. You don't have to repeat the same episode, but write it so its clear that it's in the show, and not in reality.
  • I don't see how flashbacks centering on the character were meant to make him "unlikeable". That seems out of place in the sentence. Is there a better way to word, or clarify what that means?
  • A lot of the characteristics information is written as "in-universe". It should be rewritten to be "out-of-universe". Since you are using the episode to show his characteristics (even though you should be finding outside sources that explain these characters, because it could easily be seen as original research), you should write it so that it's clear "In episode X, Paul shows little concern about the heroic efforts of the other survivors...".
  • Is this: "but he is a well experienced actor in his home country, having won many awards" - part of the quote that precedes it, or a separate statement? It's written to contradict the previous statement, but that isn't what it should do. I think I understand how it's being used, to say that he may be unfamiliar in the States, but he's won several awards back home. It would probably be best to keep it as its own sentence, and clarify that although he is unfamiliar to American audiences, he is an accomplished actor in his [give actual hometown].
  • There is also a plague of run-on sentences thoroughout the article. Here is the worst: "Reaction to the character was more negative than for other Lost characters, one journalist even giving Paulo the nickname, "Paulo Poops-a-Lot," referencing a gag scene where Paulo emerges from the Pearl station bathroom and says, "the toilet still works," to Locke, Nikki, Sayid Jarrah and Desmond Hume who are attempting to communicate with the Others." - it's the first sentence in the reception section.

These are a few things that I saw while going through.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to address many of your opinions. In regard to the (now) "Appearances" section: the show is told in a non-linear fashion. Each episode features flashbacks from a character's past, which is why I cannot write that "'Further Instructions' introduced Paulo as a Brazilian con artist..." I could write "Further Instructions" introduced Paulo as a survivor as Oceanic Flight 815, but this would be lower on the page, causing it to seem out of place (and redundant because it is said in the lead). The featured article Andrew Van De Kamp, as well as the television series guidelines (if I'm not mistaken), say not to say "In the episode x, Paulo.." Instead, it says to cite the episode. Again, thanks for your help. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to say "introduced", you could say "explained" for episodes that used flashbacks, if the flashbacks occurred out of order with the fictional timelines. Keep the information in the order in which it aired, just explain that this episode expanded on his background in this way, and that episode expanded on his background in that way. The lead summarizes the entire article, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, so don't worry about redundancy in that aspect. But, if Project TV tells you to do it one way, you gotta meet their requirements first. I just looked at the Andrew article, and I can't see how that made it to FA status. 3/4's of the article is entirely in-universe information. LOL, I can fit all of the out-of-universe information onto my screen at the same time. Ah..it cites episodes by the second. That's seems more like fluff citations. Oh...anyway, I'll read through it again later and see how it looks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only problem I see is the citation of a Wiki (see WP:V). I'd happily support if this is fixed. Matthew 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have that is because they count how many episodes he has appeared in. I couldn't find any other sites that listed his appearances other than ABC Medianet, but then I would have to cite each press release. Would you still like it changed? --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could essentially cite IMDb for where he appears, as "credits" are the only thing that actually get from the shows themselves. Also, if he only appears in 7 episodes, it wouldn't be bad to use the ABC press releases, although IMDb (even though I hate to use them for anything) can be used as 1 source for all appearances.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, for some reason IMDb never crossed my mind for that. I will cite that instead. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if I support yet, but I have to say that this is an awesome improvement of the article. This is that real-world / out of universe direction that all fictional character/ element articles should take. If it's not at FA yet, then it's not far from it. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, concise, well-referenced and written straight-forwardly. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any reason this article and Nikki Fernandez are not merged into one article? The articles should be virtually identical, and I can see little reason to keep them apart. — Brian (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are two characters. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be beneficial, since this article is only 16kb (which means the readable prose is probably like 10-12kb) and Nikki's is 6kb (making her readable prose less than half of his). It might be something to consider to help the stability of the article. Both characters had short lives in the series, and they appeared together, not to mention they are bf/gf.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be beneficial, but Nikki and Paulo did have different experiences. Paulo was not an actress and Nikki did not hide the diamonds in the Pearl station. The reception section should be pretty similar. A lot more is known about Rodrigo Santoro for the casting section than is known about Kiele Sanchez. The characteristics section would be a mess because Paulo is worried that he will lose Nikki and Nikki only cares about Paulo for the diamonds. Just as Rose Henderson and Bernard Nadler are not one article, I do not think that Nikki and Paulo should be either. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just write another paragraph or two under "Characteristics" about Nikki. Rose and Bernard should probably be one article, too. In fact, arguably, all minor characters on Lost should be merged into a single Characters of Lost article, modeled after Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Separating them is a violation of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which states:

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

.
Merging Nikki and Paolo though, that should be a no-brainer. — Brian (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my above comment, the issue is now fixed. Looks brilliant! Matthew 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support - My real concern now is the fact that it's only 7kb large (of readable prose), which is really small. This is something to keep in the back of your mind for the future of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems to meet WP:WAF and other criteria very well. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is a little short for a FA, but the quality of the content is FA status. -- Wikipedical 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of merging Nikki Fernandez with Paulo (Lost), since in many ways their pairing is a character (you can't have one without the other). I think it would be great to attempt this, even if only in a sandbox. That would make the article truly perfect in my mind. That being said, even alone this article should be an example to other such articles, and I support featured status. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to weak-support, since I don't really have an objection, but I think a Nikki merge would make it truly perfect. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written and well referenced, I can't think of any way I would improve this article beyond how it is. Tphi 00:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written and considering that Paulo is dead, this article can't get much better. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Well written, but as others have mentioned this is a relatively short article for FA status. I'm not sure there's much more to add, though. Lumaga 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think it's pretty much been revamped to the highest possible quality. The page is thorough, accurate, and unbiased, so I don't see why not. Jwebby91 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paulo_(Lost)&oldid=1088204665"