Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Such Thing as Vampires

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [1].

No Such Thing as Vampires[edit]

Self-nominator: Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has become a GA, and I believe that it passes all FA criteria. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox image needs better fair use rationale.
  • Lead has no mention of reception?
  • "For vampires in general, it is shown that daylight is not good, but it does not cause them to burst into flames" - prose in general needs a spiff... it's OK (GA quality) but not really professional (FA quality)... Get someone who hasn't seen it to do a copyedit.

giggy (:O) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the image a better rationale (I think), and I added some mention of reception to the lead. I will ask someone to copyedit the article soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has been asked. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I really like the production and reception sections and the free images inside them. I copy-edited some of the article, but after reading the beginning of the plot section, I was… well, lost (hmm, that doesn't work as well here). Some tips for the future: Instead of [[flashback|flashbacks]], just use [[flashback]]s; avoid self-references ("we") and contractions and make use of the edit summary field. I am not convinced that the picture being used has the strongest fair use claim of any possible screenshot. The necklaces, the funeral, the stabbing or some other picture may be better than a close-up of the (already pictured) main character hugging someone whose face cannot be seen. And have you seen this? Excellent work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this picture? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted the new picture. Better? Worse? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Also, avoid weasel words. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comingsoon.net link was replaced with the official Comic-Com website. The tvbythenumbers link was inserted to give credibility to the ratings, as two sources are better than one. I know moonlight-archive.com isn't a reliable source, but it's an interview. Trevor Munson said those words (unfortunately to an unreliable source) but I still think it's ok to provide the source. Futon Critic, I know it isn't considered to be very reliable, but that's the only place with that kind of information. Could exceptions be made for those citations? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:V isn't a guideline, it's a policy. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the TV by the Numbers reference. I still stand by my comment that the moonlight-archive.com should be allowed to stay. It is an interview, so I don't think (and this is what I think) that it really matters on which site it is posted. As for The Futon Critic references, I will try to find alternate sources. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 09:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, please take the moonlight-archive issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where others can weigh in on the issue. For me, it's a matter of how reliable is the place recording the interview. How do we know they didn't edit the interview or insert some bias into it. While it doesn't appear likely in this case, it's always a concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have said that The Futon Critic refs (for this page) are fine. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Futon Critic I still haven't gotten an answer yet for the Moonlight Information Archive. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official Comic Con ref is dead. Is this http://www.mania.com/official-comic-con-schedule_article_55328.html a good alternative? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would work, mainly since it's not very contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'll insert it right away. Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 02:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComments Needs a fair amount of copy editing. Here are some examples from the start of the article:

  • Lead image caption needs to avoid repetition of "body" in the same sentence.
  • Opening sentence - no need to specify both "pilot episode" and "first season" since pilots by definition must preceed the first season.
  • Lede second sentence - need to define "sire" for those not familiar with vampire lore.
  • Lede third paragraph - rewrite to avoid saying "critic" three times in two sentences.
  • Plot section, first paragraph - "Mick arrives at the crime scene of the murder of a young woman" is a little clumsy, something like "...arrives at the scene of the murder of.." reads better
  • "Beth takes the picture, but cannot help but notice large puncture wounds on her neck" - I haven't seen this show, but are we really aware of her inner thought processes to this extent? Can she really "not help" but notice the wounds?
  • "While thinking of vampire-related titles for her story" - same issue - how do we know what the character is thinking?
  • "Beth runs into Mick, who she says looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other" this seems like a convoluted way of expressing a simple sequence. I had to read this a couple of times to sort out who exactly said what to whom. You could split it into separate sentences to make it obvious: "Beth runs into Mick. She says he looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other"
  • "At BuzzWire, Beth's editor tells her that she likes the vampire angle, with Beth saying it just came to her." - sudden jump of scene within the same paragraph. the phrase "with Beth saying" is confusing - is Beth talking simultaneously with her editor? Again this sentence needs a rewrite.
  • "The next morning, Beth finds the dead woman's car, with a necklace hanging from the rearview mirror." How does she find the car? Just a lucky coincidence?
  • "Meanwhile, Mick goes to visit Josef, his vampire friend who is 400 years old." - what is the important information here: that Josef is Mick's friend, that Josef is a vampire, that Josef is 400 years old or that Mick visits Josef? It seems like too much information crammed into one sentence.
  • "Josef seems concerned about the "vampire" murder being bad for their safety." Why the scare quotes around vampire? You haven't told us yet whether this is a vampire murder or not. Do vampires really murder their victims? Aren't they feeding? Is that the same as murder?
  • "Mick goes to the morgue to get some blood and information from his friend, Guillermo (Jacob Vargas)." what does "to get some blood" imply? Is he really drinking the blood of his friend Guillermo? That's a very good friend.
  • "He smells the dead girl found in the fountain, and realizes that a vampire did not kill her." Is her body in the morgue? How does he know a vampie did not kill her by smelling her blood?
  • "Mick and Beck break into the dead girl's apartment and find another of the necklaces, with a vial of blood inside". Who is Beck? We haven't been introduced to this character yet. Or is this a typo for Beth? If so, why is Mick working with Beth? You say "another of the necklace" but this is the first mention of necklaces or vials of blood, so I'm confused.
  • "Someone calls Beth, a person named Josh (Jordan Belfi), and Mick disappears". Re-order this sentence: Josh (Jordan Belfi) calls Beth, and Mick disappears". You also need to say why Mick leaves (or does he literally turn invisible?)
  • "...her lecturer Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin)..." only "Professor" should be wikilinked to Professor, since that article is not about the character of Professor Ellis.

These are just examples. The whole article needs a pretty thorough rewrite by someone who hasn't worked on it before. I'm afraid this isn't at featured article quality yet. Gwernol 11:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 12:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these specific issues, Cornucopia. However, I think you need to get someone fresh to do a thorough copy edit of the article. It still suffers from prose issues and doesn't flow well for the reader. You still have lots of very short sentences in there which break up the flow and make it hard to follow the plot your writing about. The The examples above are examples, rather than an exhaustive list of the issues that need to be fixed. For now, I'm remaining opposed, though I'd be happy to reassess this after further work. Good luck, Gwernol 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another look at the article. Sorry it has taken a while, I have been busy off-Wiki. The article has definitely improved - thanks for the hard work. I've found fewer issues with it, so I've removed my formal oppose, above. However I'm not ready to support it yet. There are still some prose issues I'd like to see ironed out. I've fixed a couple of obvious ones, but several need an editor who is more familiar with the show and this particular episode. Here's what I found:
  • The wikilink of "sire" goes to Childe (World of Darkness). This seems problematic. The linked article is tagged as having multiple issues. The linked article deals with the term childe, not sire (though sire is mentioned as a synonym). Most importantly that article covers a different mythology from the Moonlight mythology - is the vampire legend in Moonlight really exactly the same as World of Darkness?
  • In the plot section: "Beth has some one on one time with Ellis..." too informal and unspecific. Does this mean Beth talks to Ellis after the class is over? What do they talk about?
  • Plot section: "Beth passes out..." its not clear to me why she passes out, since it was Mick who was stabbed
  • Plot section: "Mick...lights the place on fire" you shouldn't refer to "the place" without having first told us that "the place" is. Can you change "the place" to be more specific?
  • The Continuity section is misnamed, since it deals with part of the pilot, not its continuity with the rest of the series.
  • Continuity section: "Vampires also have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well, smell the past and glimpse the future" - there are no senses that can be heightened in order to allow you to glimpse the future. That ability is not a heightened sense, it is something else.
  • Production section: "Trevor Munson ... spent the better part of two and a half years writing a novel around this character" should read "...writing a novel featuring the character"?
  • Production section: "The script later fell into the hands of..." again suffers from being too informal and not specific enough. Can you clarify this?
  • Production section: "...to turn his script into a television series" reword to "...to rewrite the script as a television series"
  • Production section: "With an almost entirely different cast, a retooled, full-length pilot for television audiences was re-shot and creative control of the show changed hands". This needs to be split into two separate sentences. The information about reshooting the pilot is separate from the information about creative control changing hands. In the second sentence we need to know who gained creative control and why.
  • Production section: Picture of Bruce Willis - Willis was briefly mentioned as a possible cast member for the film version of the series. It seems odd then that the only photo illustrating this section is of Willis.
  • Production section: "Originally, Josef was to be portrated by Šerbedžija, who according to O'Laughlin, was twice Jason Dohring's age". Not sure about the "according to O'Laughlin" bit. Is there some doubt that Šerbedžija was twice Dohring's age? I've already fixed the spelling error in that quote.
  • Production section: "it was a concern that he was more a "father figure" to Mick when Josef was much older" I just can't parse this phrase. What exactly is the studio's concern - that he would seen as a father figure because he was older? Father figures usually are older. This needs to be rewritten to more clearly express the intent.
  • Reception section: "Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune also praised the lead actors, saying that O’Loughlin's was "passable in the lead role", and that Myles was "reasonably good"" I wouldn't describe saying that the lead actor was "passable" counted as praise, unless you want to include this as an example of "damning with faint praise". I think you need to reword this.
  • Reception section: I'm concerned that the lede does not properly reflect the reception section. Reading the lede I was left with the impression that the reviews were pretty mixed, with some pans and a few positive. After reading the reception section, its pretty clear that the pilot was almost universally loathed by the critics with only a couple of minor exceptions - and even these amount to faint praise with significant caveats. I think the lede needs to more accurately reflect this.
Hope that is helpful. The article is much better and getting closer to the prose quality required for a Featured Article. Best, Gwernol 12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of the points raised, though I am not sure what to do with a few. Another user requested a meaning for "sire" in the lead, though I am not sure how to insert it without making it sound akward. Do you think it would be okay if I left it as it is? I changed the "Continuity" section to "Mythology"; I couldn't think of anything else. For the sense thing, seeing the future could be related to "the sixth sense" (I realise how stupid that sounds). The source I used to verify that statement uses those exact words, so I'm not sure what to do. Maybe change it to "Vampires have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well and smell the past. They also develop psychic powers, allowing them to glimpse the future". As for the photo of Willis, I previously had two others (which were more relevant), but they were both deleted. That was the only free image I could find. :D Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the "other user: who asked for sire to be Wikilinked was me :-) My point above was not that it was incorrect to Wikilink sire, but that the particular article you linked to doesn't seem like a good one. The right link would be (in order of preference): 1) an article about the specific meaning of "sire: in the Moonlight mythology (or a link to the appropriate section of an overall Moonlight mythology article) 2) an article about the general concept of siring (again, or to a section in a general article about vampire mythology) 3) If none of the above exist, then find an external source that explains what "sire" means in the world of Moonlight, and use that to explain the meaning. Gwernol 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link to the main Moonlight page, where I wrote a very brief description of a sire. I think the writing is a bit akward, read it and tell me what you think! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppos-ish comment I have begun copyedititing the article, but I really find the plot summary to be too unfocused, long and unhelpful for someone (like me) who hasn't seen this programme. For example the first plot paragraph: Who are Mick and Beth etc. (private investigator, reporter, can be shorter than in the lead)? Why is it important that Beth tries to take pictures than takes pictures? Is it important that the body was found in a fountain? In the next paragraph, Beth writes an article for BuzzWire, although it has already been stated before that she "is reporting for the online newspaper BuzzWire". In general, the plot summary should be trimmed by one third down to 450 or less words, and the problem will mostly dissolve. I can't comment on the other parts of the article yet, but FA potential is there. – sgeureka t•c 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I condensed the plot a bit, but it still needs work. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 13:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plot has been cut down. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the plot section seems better now. I'll reserve other comments for when I've finished reading the article. – sgeureka t•c 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (None of the following is meant to sound harsh, but it is my honest opinion as an FA reviewer, to help you get the article to FA quality.) The reception section appears to be a collection of every review that appeared in reliable sources, but in an unordered and unsummarized way. For example, the section mentions in several sentences how four different reviewers compared the series to Angel – why not say once that several reviewers compared it to Angel[1][2][3] and be done with it? Reception of the cast appears everywhere, and info about positive and negative reception is mixed. Many sentences begin with "S/he said". There is no real flow; it reads like a list of reviews was thrown together to appear like prose, which is good as raw data in a GA, but not thoughfully arranged reception information in FA quality. Mind you, I have seen several FA episode articles do the same, so I won't oppose, but I can't give my support either. (To get my point better across, imagine if a wiki reader cares more about (1) whether Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave a negative review, or (2) if the show was similar to Angel, had a good/terrible cast, had (no) potential, etcetera. I.e. focus on the points of reception, not on the reviewers.) – sgeureka t•c 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try to resturcture the section soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section has been almost completely rehashed. Please reread it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wanted to wait with another comment until I have read the article very closely in full, but I just skimmed the reception section and must say, very good job. I'll give the article a good read-through and a copyedit tomorrow, and it's already looking very close to support (at least). Goodnight. :-) – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see some positive comments ;) lol Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've run a copyedit through the plot section for conciseness, but you should check again where I messed up in grammar (not so likely) or plot summary (more likely). I have also left two invisible comments that should be addressed because the plot summary there (or the significance of sentences) didn't make sense to me. If the Mythology really constitutes most of the introduction to this episode, the section should either be moved before the plot section or should be merged into the plot section as the first paragraph, as this explains much of the plot. My reading of the Production and Reception section will follow. – sgeureka t•c 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of merging some of the mythology into the plot, which I will do in a few minutes. If you feel that it is not better, then I can change it back and put the mytho section before the plot. Oh yeah, please make sure you keep on pressing control-c on your edits, just in case there are a few edit conflicts. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, should the "Mythology" section be placed as a subheading under "Plot"? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I am too unfamiliar with the show, but since I am not a big fan of stubbish sections anyway, I think it could find a place elsewhere. Maybe it works in the production section as an explanation after "the original concept", but that's just an idea. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it's nearly there, but I've done all I could. You should still try to get rid of some "saying"s in the Reception section. It is also my feeling that the Reception section could do without four or so less quotes (they are little bit overwhelming I think), but I'll leave that decision to you. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well thanks for all your help! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I just did a casual read through and the prose has improved significantly since I last looked at it. Happy to support - well done! —Giggy 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Requirement for professional-standard formatting (overlinked), Cr. 1a.

  • Overlinked. Many of your links are valuable to readers, and they're significantly diluated by the bright-blue patchwork at the moment. I delinked a few trivial ones at the top, including the date autoformatting, which, please note, is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). Please weed out the trivials throughout: items such as "CBS" repeated link, "eulogy", "assistant", "garlic", hello ...?

I took a spot-check on one single para in the middle.

  • A certain looseness in the tone, and I see reviewers above have pointed this out. "spent the better part of two and a half years"—well, um ... how long? If WP doesn't tell you exactly, who does?
  • The dreaded with as a connector (very poor) finished off by the ungrammatical noun plus -ing: "with Bruce Willis being considered".
  • "The script was then shown to ..."—We know it's a sequence of events, so remove "then".
  • "to executive produce the project"—nope, readers won't cope with that as a verb, despite the flexibility of English. "to be e ps on"
  • And there's another "with plus noun plus -ing".

Can you find someone else to go through the whole text and polish it up, please? It's not a huge job, but needs doing so we can be proud of it. TONY (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Made a few tweaks. Seems good enough now. I think I preferred Image:Rade Serbedzija.jpg to the image of Bruce Willis. Everyone knows what BW looks like. It seems more interesting to see what Dohring's character almost looked like. There's probably some reasoning behind this I don't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. :-) I added the image of BW because the image of Rade was deleted, but now that it is back I will reinsert it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a (prose/narrative) and 1c (sources). The prose is pretty good but there are errors and narrative problems as outlined below. The plot section needs copy-editing. Also, there are a couple questionable sources (TV Guide and TV Squad, details below).
    • I don't really understand the genre classification of "supernatural" in the lead. What makes a drama supernatural? In the article about the show, it is called a "paranormal romance".
    • "Behind the scenes, the pilot underwent several major changes." Not a good paragraph opener. Suggests context that isn't there yet—changes from what? Describe what was changed before you say it was changed. You go on to mention an "original short presentation" that we don't know about.
    • Run-on sentence in the lead: "Many critics criticized the acting and the writing, one said that it had the 'worst writing of the new season'."
    • "After the dead woman's lecturer, Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin), has given an eulogy at her funeral, a blonde girl named Chloe attacks him, slashing his neck." The phrase "dead woman's lecturer" is odd. People have dentists and gardeners, but not lecturers. I'm not certain about regional dialects, but "eulogy" normally is pronounced beginning with a "y" sound meaning it should be "a eulogy".
    • "Beth tracks down Chloe, who explains the professor's vampire-worshipping blood cult and his belief in being a vampire." Meaning he believes he is a vampire, or he believes he can become a vampire?
    • "Later Mick finds Chloe's dead body, and knowing Beth has gone to Ellis's class, he runs off to save her." Are we to assume Ellis has killed Chloe? Don't make readers guess at this if it was stated in the show. Ellis had a class after being slashed in the neck at a funeral? "Runs off" is inappropriate tone.
    • "Ellis attacks Beth and though she escapes ..." Prefer "although" for more formal prose.
    • "When she wakes up, she remembers that Mick saved her as a child and that he was stabbed by the assistant." These happened at the same time? Confusing narrative.
    • "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology ..." I'm not convinced what you've listed is a "unique" mythology since I have seen these elements of vampire mythology in other fiction. Please provide a relevant quote from your sources that establishes the mythology as unique. A TV Guide episode recap is not an acceptable source for critical interpretation.
    • "Joel Silver and Gerard Bocaccio came on board ..." Colloquial, please revise.
    • "The project was renamed Moonlight when CBS gave it an early pick-up ..." What is "giving an early pick-up"? Explain jargon or wikilink.
    • The TV Squad source is unreliable, I think. I was looking around the site for their editorial guidelines and I saw "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own." That's bad news. --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but can you elaborate on why TV Squad is unrealiable? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, according to our guidline, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." TV Squad's own FAQ (as quoted above) states that they do don't that at all—there are no editorial guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have fixed most of the raised points. I increased the lead size, what do you think? For this line: "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology", I added a reference to an interview with O'Loughlin. I think the TV Squad ref is okay, it is not sourcing anything controversial or important; it is merely sourcing an editor's point of view. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much improved—your use of TV Squad seems okay on second look, but I'm not convinced the particular blogger you cite is anyone special. Why should his views be cited in an encyclopedia article? Do you have any print sources citing TV Squad as a notable blog? --Laser brain (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the line that mentioned the reviewer, though I left the parts that were described by him; e.g. "Several critics compared it detrimentally with the television series Angel". Is this compromise good enough? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:32, 14 July 2008 (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/No_Such_Thing_as_Vampires&oldid=1089084009"