Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connection Lost/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2025 [1].

---

Connection Lost

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

In 2015, "Connection Lost"—from the Emmy-winning sitcom Modern Family—made headlines for being presented entirely through a computer screen. While this format may be common in television now, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic, it was revolutionary a decade ago. The episode received critical acclaim, not just for its original format but also for its humour and story, though some critics were divided in regards to the product placement of Apple devices, and it has since been considered one of Modern Family's best episodes. I began working on this article late last year, and it passed a GA review by DaniloDaysOfOurLives a bit over a month later. Pamzeis (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lead and plot sections both need too much prior knowledge of the overall series to be understandable to the millions of people who have never seen it. The names Claire, Hayley, Phil, Alex etc are fired at readers who have no clue who these characters are or what the relationship is between them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m going to add there is also some weak writing that isn’t at FA standard in there. “According to Modern Family co-creator Steven Levitan, for the sixth season, the writers' first priority was to avoid disappointing the audience and to revitalize the series whenever possible; they were not afraid of experimenting with different forms.” Is one such example that particularly jarred. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I tend to agree with SchroCat, above. The article could benefit from a peer review, before it is renominated. MSincccc (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, SchroCat and MSincccc. Thanks for your comments. I've made some changes to the article to try to address your concerns. Lemme know if any of it works or not. Again, thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  @SchroCat and MSincccc: Apologies for pinging again, but I was wondering if any of the changes to the article help quell any of your concerns. Thanks :) Pamzeis (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re-reading, although there is now some context, there are still issues I have with the text throughout. As FAs are supposed to be examples of the best the encyclopaedia has to offer, I'm afraid this falls short of that level at the moment. I can list a lot of examples, but don't want to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP, as I think it needs to be polished at PR before it comes here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support as it meets the FA criteria. The above issue can be fixed, which Pam is already doing now. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support if fixed like Danilo, I agree that the above issue and any other small problems can be resolved rather easily. Good job on the article! Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • So two votes for something you both have admitted is not at FA standard? I am sure the FAC coords will note this. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

    SchroCat sorry this is my first time responding to a FAC, so I may have been a little too supportive ha ha. I fixed my suggestion to "Support if fixed" if that is better Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reconrabbit

• Image review:
• Images do not have alt text.
  • Added alt text
• Non-free use rationale for File:Modern-Family-6x16.jpg is complete.
• File:Steven Levitan.jpg - extracted image, uses compatible CC BY-2.0 license. Placement is relevant to the immediately following discussion regarding episode direction.
• File:Julie Bowen Oct 2014 (cropped).jpg - cropped from watermarked image, but source indicates CC BY-SA 2.0 license, which is reflected. Placement is relevant to the filming, where caption is reiterated.
• Comments:
• Is "bin" a filetype? This could be linked, glossed or otherwise explained. (In the fragment "the bins on his Avid computer were so large")
  • Linked
• Does "morphing from one shot to another" refer to Morphing?
  • I believe so. I've linked this as well
  • Will have more to remark upon soon. Images themselves meet criteria besides the missing alt text. -- Reconrabbit 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: Responded to the above comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep looking but at this time am willing to support on the image use criteria. Since SchroCat and MSincccc haven't responded and I haven't completely reviewed the prose I can't say anything on that front. -- Reconrabbit 13:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Something to note:

• The characters should be introduced as characters (rather than stating "Claire Dunphy", probably "the character Claire Dunphy, played by Julie Bowen"?) and possibly have more context as to their role(s).

@FAC coordinators: I'd like to withdraw this to work on it further outside the FAC space. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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