# Talk:Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse)

There seems to be a conflict of guidelines between Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Character article structure and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide, which this article was recently converted to match. The former one better follows how Wikipedia handles fictional data - it firsts presents the story or plot then it details the out-of-universe aspects of it - see Arrow (TV series), Arrow (season 7) and Pilot (Arrow). It's also worth pointing out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide isn't really a guideline with community consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm the editor who converted the structure of the article. In doing so, I consulted both the style guides above. I noted that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Character article structure does not recommend a specific layout, instead giving guidance to the potential sections and content therein. The advice given at that style guide is: "When creating an article on a single character of a television show, note that the section headers below are not mandatory, and various good and featured articles on fictional characters have different section headers (and placement) than one another. Find the structure that works best for the article in question; regardless of whether you use these headers, the information that they discuss is important to establishing an article with real world context." Following on from this I looked through various featured and good character articles to establish which layouts are used and considered good practice, of which there were a variety of layouts. Consulting Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide, the appearances section was listed after characterization, a format many of the aforementioned articles followed. Looking at both the talk page and history of that guide, although not very active, there did not seem to be conflict/disagreement regarding the layout prescribed. Finally, I looked through Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Contextual_presentation, which again had no specific layout guideline, but emphasized the importance of real-world context. Looking at the exceptional articles listed there, again a variety of formats are used, and in the case of Pauline Fowler, no separate storyline/appearance section is given at all. I felt that the background given in the characterization section was sufficient contextualization as an introduction to the reader less familiar with the subject. In order to ensure that the article acts as an encyclopedic record, rather than a 'wiki-style' character page, placing the storylines/appearance sections after real-world context (which includes fictional elements in order to provide more context) seemed to work best for the article. A lot of articles related to the Arrowverse over emphasize narrative over content. My main aim was to ensure that the latter was emphasized in importance over the former. AutumnKing (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 17:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

The opening sentence is a big 'un four run-on clauses, probably could split it at "first introduced...".
 Done
"was continually portrayed" is "continually" needed?
 Done
" Initially a one-episode guest star in the first season of Arrow, she went on to become a recurring character in season one" eh?  I guess you mean after guest-starring in an early episode of season one, she went on to become a recurring character later in the season?
- Have reworded - does that read better? AutumnKing (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"DLC pack," probably worth linking DLC.
 Done
I think mostly we spell savvy with two v's.
 Done
" guest star[3] but following a positive response from show lead Stephen Amell[4] and from Warner Brothers executive Peter Roth[5][6] as well as from journalists at preview screenings[7] her role was extended to recurring through out the show's first season.[8]" never keen in the intrusive positioning of these refs. I'm certain our readers would be prepared to wait for the end of the sentence before finding the RS.
 Done
" until...the " check ellipsis spacing per WP:ELLIPSIS (I think a space on both sides is needed).
 Done
Apply that to the prose as well as the quote box.
 Done
"seventh, and penultimate, season" you only just mentioned that season 8 was the ultimate season so I don't think you need both seventh and penultimate here.
 Done
"without Rickards. [18]" no spaced between punc and ref.
 Done
"Felicity Megan Smoak[19] is ...  "  similar comment relating to ref placement.
 Done
"on July 24, 1989[21]" whether or not you keep the ref there, should be a comma after 1989.
 Done
"Her early years are..." mega sentence.... split a bit!
 Done
"Speaking after being made a series regular, Rickards commented" probably don't need "Speaking" here as she "comments..."
 Done
"Comic-Con" is hyphenated in our article.
 Done
Any reason why witness protection is capitalised (and not linked?)
 Done
Called away, back to complete soon. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"of The A.V. Club " that's italicised according to our own article.
 Done
"During season 2, when" two.
 Done
"Speaking in 2014, executive" avoid single-sentence paras.
 Done
"The season 4 premiere..." four.
 Done
"Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics" we put a comma after Engineering normally.
 Done
" loss of QC at" what is that?
 Done
A few more "Talking ... noted" and "Speaking .. noted" in there.
 Done
" men".[66]During " space after ref.
 Done
"the AV Club saw" you called it "The A.V. Club" (not italics) earlier, and already linked it.  Be consistent.
 Done
"representations of women in STEM" no need to relink STEM.  Also, for multiple references like that, consider including them all in a bullet pointed list under one ref to avoid the ugly "citekill" look.
 Done
"majority of Arrow's run.[89][90][91][92][93][94][95] " similar.
 Done
"In DC Comics canon" should that really be "In the DC Comics canon"?
 Done
"Oliver-Felicity" probably ought to be en-dash.
 Done
"critics.[103][46][104][105] " could do the same thing with these refs, but if not, please make them numerical order.
 Done
" event Crisis on Earth-X, the" this event is shown in quotes in the target articles.
 Done
Seems to be some unnecessary whitespace between para 1 and 2 of the Family section.
 Done
"father, Noah Kuttler (Tom Amandes). also" probably should be a comma, not a full stop.
 Done
"she later gives birth to Oliver and her daughter, Mia" reads really odd, do you mean she gave birth to her and Oliver's baby, Mia?
- Reworded, hopefully reads better. AutumnKing (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"Going Rouge" rouge or rogue?!
 Done
"Felicity and Earth- 2 Laurel's" what is "Earth- 2 Laurel"??  I think this person should be introduced here, rather than a few sections further down...
- Added background. Do you think it is sufficient? AutumnKing (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"mid season" I would hyphenate this.
 Done
Another single-sentence para at the end of Costume section.
- Expanded paragraph. AutumnKing (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you think there's a real justification for the use of two non-free images of Smoak?  I'm not convinced that the second brings more to the party than the first...
 Removed
"his identity.[22]Following" space after ref.
 Done
"for A.R.G.U.S..[176] " remove the last full stop.
 Done
A lot of relinking of the season articles, I'm not completely unhappy with it because they're all in the Storyline section and perhaps a way after the first links, but just thought I'd mention it.
- Have left in for reasons you mention. AutumnKing (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"from an A.R.G.U.S. prison." having said that, no need to link A.R.G.U.S. again.
 Done
The Flash section has a couple of single-sentence paras.
 Done
" "Crisis on Earth X"," already linked but previously as "... Earth-X".
 Done
" become...you " ellipsis comment applies.
 Done
"'fan favorite'[224][225][51][226][227][31] or 'breakout' character,[228][229][230][231] " I'd really like those refs either in numerical order or bulleted so we only have one source number in line... Several examples of this in the early "Critical response" sections.
 Done
IGN be consistent across the prose and refs, italics or not?
 Done
"three episode The Secret Origin of Felicity Smoak for Digital Spy" aren't episode titles normally in quote marks?
 Done
That's enough for a first quick scan.  I'll put the nomination on hold while we go through these initial comments. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Done everything as asked, just a couple of queries regarding rewording. Let me know if you think there is any more work to do. Many thanks. AutumnKing (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, quick additional question, would you say that the length/level of detail in the article is an issue at all ? Many thanks. AutumnKing (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It is very detailed.  But I would say that if you were considering heading to FAC then this would be fine.  I'll make another pass over the article later.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I had a review of the above items and the general status of the article now and I'm happy that it meets the GA criteria.  Great work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Autumnking2012: The source given for Felicity features in several chapters of the series, which were later included in Arrow:Vol 2, the second of two volumes collating the original chapters. is [4]. Can you explain how Felicity features in several chapters of the series, which were later included in the second volume of the comic series. doesn't say that? --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

My issue was that reading the paragraph as a whole  (DC announced in September 2012 that it would be publishing a tie-in comic to accompany the series, to be released initially as digital chapters, and then later be collated to produce monthly print issues. Felicity features in several chapters of the series, which were later included in Arrow:Vol 2, the second of two volumes collating the original chapters.) the change reads as though these chapters are collated in one of the print issues referenced in the first sentence, which is not the case. The second sentence is referencing the two volumes which would be more accurately referred to as graphic novels than a comic series and are something distinct from the aforementioned publications. They were published in 2013 and 2014 respectively as Arrow:Vol 1 ([5]) which collated issues 1-5 of those original print issues plus the preview comic, and Arrow:Vol 2 ([6]) which collated the rest. The chapters with Felicity in are all in the second volume. AutumnKing (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that is that "volume" is not an "issue". Do the "chapters" in Felicity features in several chapters of the series refer to issues? If so, say so, as "chapter" is not a comic book term. Once that is corrected, using the word "volume" cannot mean anything else. I propose then: Felicity features in several issues of the comic series. These issues were later included in the second volume of the comic series. Also, as a side note, you keep writing Arrow:Vol 2 when that isn't the name that appears in the source you use, which is Arrow: Volume 2. --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You are right that the comics themselves say 'Volume'. I was originally copying the titles directly from the DC source, which listed it as 'Vol'.([7]). I have no issue either way. As for the use of the term 'chapters' that is how they are referred to in the original press release. ([8]) It is also how they are titled on the digital covers ([9]). The references provided are to each of the digital chapters, where the stories first appeared, not to the subsequent print issues. To answer your questions, I am not equating a volume with an issue. Two books were released, in 2013 and 2014 respectively, as Volume 1 and Volume 2. These are not issues. To refer them as such would be incorrect and as I have pointed out, create confusion with the actual comic issues that were produced. No, the chapters do not refer to issues. 36 digital chapters, named as such, were released in 2012-2013 and the references are to these. Chapters may not be a commonly used comic book term, but it is the one used in this instance. AutumnKing (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I have reworded both sentences slightly, in order to clarify the meaning and hopefully make the distinction between the digital chapters, print issues and published volumes more clear. AutumnKing (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)