Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Hell Breaks Loose (Charmed)/archive1

Olliefant

• I don't like "Background" alot of it is about the series overall and not the episode in particular
  • Butting in to note that background sections are very common in FAs, and serve to contextualize the subject for people unfamiliar with the whole series. This one isn't overlong for the length of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I’m going to butt in here in support of the section too. I posted an oppose on another television episode FAC and linked to this article praising the background section here as ensuring the premise of the show made sense to me as I’ve never seen or heard of the series before. The one I opposed didn’t have such a section, or any assistance for anyone who hadn’t read the article, which made comprehension highly problematic. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Production" has no information on the guest stars
• "is the twenty-second episode and season finale of the third season" this flows weirdly, I'd just something like "is the twenty-second and finale episode of the third season"
  • Done.
• "—the third and final episode of Charmed she directed—" too trivial for the lead
  • Done.
• "directed by Shannen Doherty" state her role in the series
  • Done.
• [showrunner] [Brad Kern] is an MOS:SOB violation
  • Done.
• [fantasy] [drama] same as above
  • Done.
• [primetime] [network television] same
  • Done.
• "her podcast Let's Be Clear with Shannen Doherty that" -> "her podcast, Let's Be Clear with Shannen Doherty, that"
  • Done.
• Link "podcast"
  • Done.
• "primetime" is two words
  • Done.
• Merge the last two paragraphs of "Cast response"
  • Done.
• Ref 9, the publisher should be The Onion
  • Done.
• Ref 25, "HuffPost" -> "The Huffington Post"
• Refs 1, 14, 32, 49 have MOS:DASH errors
• Not sure if this applies to refs but ref 15 lists [Kenosha, Wisconsin], [United States] which is a MOS:GEOLINK violation. A few others have this error

That's what I found, ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 19:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Olliefant:. Thank you for the review! :) I have responded to the majority of your comments, although there are some things to discuss. Regarding the guest stars, I simply cited the episode itself at the end of the first sub-section. I noticed that the Barge of the Dead article which is FA does a similar things, so I hope that's appropriate.

I did try to go through the dash errors, but I admittedly had some difficulty. There is no reference #49, although the last one did have an issue. As for #14, I couldn't find anything in that area with a dash error. Still, I went through the references, and hopefully no more issues exist.

Concerning the HuffPost source, I didn't change the name as that is the website's current title, but I don't have much preference either way and no issue with changing it. As for the references having a SOB, I didn't change it, as I'm not sure it applies here. Still, I don't have an issue with changing that either.

Lastly, I agree with PMC and SchroCat about the "Background" section. Initially, the article didn't have one, which meant that I had to add additional information in the "Plot" section so that readers unfamiliar with the show would understand what's going on. This in turn created an issue with the plot summary being longer than what Wikipedia allows. I mean, the episode is the finale of season 3, so there's three years worht of storylines and characters arcs that readers would need some familiarity with. Plus, as a fantasy series with its own mythos, explaining a few things like Whitelighters and whatnot would probably take unnecessary space in the "Plot" area. For this reason, I believe that having a "Background" section is important and helps the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the dash issues, "HuffPost" didn't become the name until after the article was published (2013 vs 2017), and while I don't like it I'll concede on the background section Olliefant (she/her) 18:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: Thank you for working on the dash issues; the devil really is in the details, lol. I also changed the name of HuffPost. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 17:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hate to bother you but I have an episode nomination up myself, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television/archive1, would you mind giving it a look? Olliefant (she/her) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: Sure! I'll look into it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Apologies in advance, as I could just be overthinking this, but I wonder if "the most powerful good witches" could be briefly expanded upon to say something like "the most powerful good witches of all time". Something about the current wording seems incomplete, but that could just be me.
  • You're not overthinking it, lol. I'm pretty sure I had it written exactly like that at some point, but an editor suggested I remove it. I think. Anyway, given that the "Background" section says something similar, I've added it back.
    • Thank you for letting me know and for addressing this! I am glad that I was not focusing too much on this lol. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• This one is just a suggestion, so feel free to disagree with it. I was looking at the passive tense used in this sentence: In contemporary press releases, it was reported that she left the series of her own volition due to creative differences. I was wondering if it could be reworded to something like, According to contemporary press releases, she left the series of her own violation due to creative differences, to avoid the passive tense and to tighten the sentence somewhat. Again, just a suggestion, but I thought about it while reading this sentence, so I thought that it was worth raising this point here.
  • Nice suggestion. Done.
• Do you think that Willem de Blécourt is notable enough to name in the lead? I was only curious about this as it does put a lot of weight and emphasis on him and his analysis.
  • I did do a quick Google News search on the guy, and not much came up, so I guess he is not all that notable. Removed his name.
    • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• I would be mindful of the following sentence construction, with Kern stating he had seen its rough cut. Although I do not have any real thoughts or issues with it, I know that other editors have raised concerns about the "with X verb-ing" format, so it may be worth looking into revising any of these instances to avoid it. Feel free to disregard this though, because it may be worthwhile to wait to see if any other editors bring this up.
  • I'm pretty sure you've brought this up at all my FACs, lol. I think I'll leave it in for now and see if it becomes an issue later on; if it does, it's pretty small.
    • That makes sense. Apologies for bringing it up again. I had seen this comment so often in FACs that I feel more or less obligated to bring it up whenever I notice it, but I do not have a strong opinion about it either away. I think that it is a good idea to keep it unless a reviewer says that it is a sticking point for them. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• I have a question about how this episode's ending was recut, although I fully admit that there may not be an answer for this based on the information available. So, to the best of my understanding (and feel free to correct me), but the episode was intentionally written with a cliffhanger, but even with that, the ending still had to be changed to accommodate for Prue's death. Do we know anything about what the original ending was going to look like? Again, this information may not be known (and that is likely the case).
  • Good question! The answers is [REDACTED]. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the episode was "recut". I even glanced at the shooting script, and it ends the same way; with the Shax cliffhanger. I don't think any changes actually took place with the episode. I mean, Doherty was fire less than a week before the episode's airdate. Given that it was 2001, would that have been enough time for them to be able to edit anything? The source is from June 2001 and states: "Spelling says producers are recutting last month’s season finale to explain the sudden disappearance of Doherty’s Prue". I'm guessing that with the decision to kill-off Prue, they wanted to edit the episode in a way that indicated Prue had died? But as far as I'm aware, no edited version of the episode was ever aired, and no other sources exist referencing this "recut".
    • I had a feeling that was the case. I am wondering how much of this was just PR spin at the time, particularly to try and cover for Doherty being fired and the behind-the-scenes shenanigans. Thank you for looking into this! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Maureen Ryan should be linked in her citation. I would double-check the other citations for this to be on the safe side.
  • Done.
• I would link Brad Kern and Shannen Doherty and Charmed season 3 in the episode citation.
  • Done; though the "season 3" part in the citation does look a bit strange with only the number being linked.
    • That is fair. I just think that it is helpful to include as many links as possible in a citation to help readers, but I would also not be opposed to the season 3 link being removed if this is brought up by another reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I hope that these comments are helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed, but I doubt that I will find anything further. I hope that you are doing well and having a wonderful day so far. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you! I hope you're doing well too. I responded to your comments (they were helpful) though I don't have much of an answer for the episode being "recut".--PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am glad that I can help. Thank you for all of the wonderful work that you have done for this article! I had a feeling that was the case with the "recut" episode (as I largely suspect that was more PR, but that is just my unsupported opinion), but I just wanted to double-check. I will read through the article again. I doubt that I will find anything further, but I just want to make sure that I do my full due diligence as a reviewer. I hope that you are having a wonderful end to your week and that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my review. I had a really good time with revisiting this article, and you have done a great job. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC and I hope that you have a wonderful March! Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• You could link to the article Series finale in the opening sentence.

Background

• You could link to teleportation.
• "half-human-half-demon" → "half-human, half-demon"

MSincccc (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Plot

• "Shax's vanquish" → "Shax's vanquishing"
• "asks his assistance getting Tempus" → "asks for his assistance in getting Tempus"

Production

• "demanded they had to fire either her or Doherty" → "demanded that they fire either her or Doherty"

Reception

• "emotionally complelling" → "emotionally compelling"

Bottom line

• I have neither seen the show nor come across it prior to today, but that should be all for the prose. PanagiotisZois I have made a couple of minor revisions and look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hey @MSincccc:. Thank you for the review! I have changed almost everything based on your comments. Regarding Cole's nature, I just went with the simpled "human-demon hybrid" option. As for linking series finale in the intro, I didn't do that because that article is about the finale of a series, whereas this episode was only the finale of season three; the show went on for an additional five years. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  A fine article. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Charmed_-_All_Hell_Breaks_Loose.jpg: the given source appears to be linkvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Done with both. Although I'm never sure if my alt text is good or not. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Source review

What makes http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20060221wb04/ a reliable source? Is "Gallagher, Diana G.; Ruditis, Paul (April 6, 2004). The Book of Three. Gallery Books. ISBN 9780689867095. Retrieved August 25, 2024." a primary source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: According to the Television WikiProject, Futon Critic seems to lean towards being a reliable source; most of the stuff they publish comes from press releases. If it's of any importance, its creator has been working in the TV industry for decades (including as a teleplay writer) and its content is cited by HuffPost. Moreover, other featured articles relating to TV shows and characters use it as a source for production information.

As for the boom, I think it kinda straddles the line. Neither of its two authors worked on the show itself, but both of them wrote various tie-in novels, with Paul Ruditis also writing the Season 9 comic continuation by Zenescope.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case I might ask what makes "The Book of Three" a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Good question. Well, the book was published by a division of Simon & Schuster in 2004, back when the series was still on air and various novels and anthologies were being published by this corporation. Moreover, according to Ruditis, anything Charmed-related that got published had to follow the show's established canon and not provide contradictory information; this being part of the deal between S&S and Paramount Pictures/CBS Consumer Products (the show's owners). Also, I'll have e to check this to make sure, but I think Constance M. Burge, creator of Charmed, was involved with the book. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess that works, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. FrB.TG (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

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