Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet(s)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2021 [1].

Janet(s)

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an episode of the television series The Good Place and is probably most notable for D'Arcy Carden's multiple roles, though it also contains several major plot reveals. I got this to GA status last year but have made major additions since then to fully cover production, analysis, and critical reviews, and I now hope to make this my first FA. Special thanks to Heartfox for advice during the GA nomination and to Wetrorave and Aoba47 for their help at the peer review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba4

I support the article for promotion based on the prose. All of my concerns were answered during the peer review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "0.8 rating in the 18–49 demographic"/"1.5 rating in the 18–49 demographic" seems like MOS:JARGON. Is there anyway to say this so non-Americans/people who are not knowledgeable about television ratings can understand it? Pamzeis (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pamzeis: I've added a footnote to explain what a rating is, and I've reworded the first "18–49 demographic" to "adults ages 18–49". RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time doing this, but I support this article for promotion. Pamzeis (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

~~I will do a source review within the next two days which I believe will pass easily.~~ One immediate comment is that I would not consider TV Series Finale a high-quality source because it does not have access to Nielsen ratings, it just copies from other sources. However, its ratings tables like the one cited in this article have also been cited in multiple books published by academic and university presses and I can't think of an alternative of higher quality for the info cited. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Heartfox: Just to clarify on this, do you think TV Series Finale should be removed or kept? It seems to match all of the ratings information from The Good Place (season 3), which is sourced to TV by the Numbers, so I am fairly confident it is reliable. However, I can also remove it and rework the section if needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, because it is cited university press-published books I can't really argue that it must be excluded. Unless another editor considers it an issue, it's up to you. Heartfox (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE bullet four, stuff like 'The Good Place' should be italicized in citation titles regardless if the publication has it in quote marks (e.g., refs 8, 22).
- Done.
I looked for Live+7 DVR in Variety and TV by the Numbers, but couldn't find any for the week the episode aired, so Programming Insider is fine.
What is the reliability of sfadb.com? Can two more established sources for the 2018 and 2020 Hugo Awards be cited instead?
- sfadb.com is run by the same organization that publishes Locus, which from my experience is a reputable source. I used that instead of finding sources for each year to avoid cluttering the sentence with excessive citations. (And if the show wins for its 2021 nomination, it would be really easy to update the citation as opposed to finding another source to add there.)
ref 22 missing author
- Done.
ref 23 episode title "The Book of Dougs" not given in source
- Removed episode title.

~~More to come...~~ sorry for the delay. Heartfox (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the delay. Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; due to my schedule I can no longer complete a source review. I have changed the heading to "comments from Heartfox". Good luck with the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

25 days in and only the single general support. Unless there is further interest over the next three to four days I am afraid this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now.....

I made some copyedits myself rather than listing them here. Nothing else is standing out as a deal-breaker. So support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*"on December 6, 2018 as" comma after 2018.

- Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "programmed guide"?
- Changed to "assistant" – less descriptive, but easier to understand. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"enter Janet's void" whaaaat??
- Reworked sentence to remove this from the lead. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"2018's best" in general or within the scope of the show?
- Reworded. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"into her void" again, this needs explanation.
- Explained briefly – let me know if this is clear. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"to not summon " not to summon, and what does that mean in this context?
- Removed sentence entirely; it's not super important and only serves as setup for Eleanor swapping bodies later, so explaining it isn't really worth it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"says Doug Forcett is on" no need to repeat surname.
- Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and a "Neutral Janet"" this isn't mentioned at all in the Plot section.
- Correct, that character is basically a one-off joke (she's the monotone receptionist who takes them to Neil). She's not really important enough to merit mention in the Plot section, but the role is discussed in other sources, so I included it in the Production section to highlight the number of roles Carden performed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and the self before writing" sense of self is already mentioned before this linked version.
- Moved wikilink. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"five and a half" this would normally be hyphenated.
- My understanding is that mixed numbers aren't hyphenated in cases like this (this Chicago MOS page explains it). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's "routine B-story"?
- That's the term they used; I changed it to "routine plotline" to avoid quoting too closely. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"both IndieWire[32] and" just move that ref to the end of the sentence, it's not going to be challenging for our readers to work it out, and it stops the jarring interjection.
- Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, it's in good shape. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your thorough feedback; I've replied to everything above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for Heartfox and The Rambling Man – please let me know if you have any questions and comments about my changes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox and The Rambling Man, anything more? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, satisfied enough to support this, sorry, I didn't have it on my watchlist. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

What makes TV Series Finale a high-quality reliable source? Programming Insider? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Programming Insider is generally regarded by WP:TV as a reliable source – in fact, it's pretty widely used now that TV by the Numbers is gone (see here and here). TV Series Finale is more questionable, but all of the information on the cited page in this article agrees with the ratings listed at The Good Place (season 3), which is sourced to TV by the Numbers; therefore, I think the numbers are accurate. I simply used TV Series Finale because it combines the information in one place instead of forcing me to cite ten pages to show it was the lowest-rated episode of the season. Heartfox also seemed to think TV Series Finale was acceptable. However, I can rework the section if needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at those discussions, I'm not seeing a reason why Programming Insider would be considered reliable - am I missing that, or could you elaborate on it? I do see the claim there that the ratings come from Nielsen - is that a feasible alternative, or would it present the same issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ratings are collected by Nielsen Media Research (hence the name Nielsen ratings), but they don't publish the ratings directly (aside from a weekly top 10); instead, people and companies can pay for the information and then share it, so the best we can get is secondary sources. I believe that Programming Insider has direct access to the Nielsen ratings; this seems to be supported by the line "Source: Live+Same Day and Live+Seven Day data, Nielsen Media Research" at the bottom of the article. I've started a discussion at WT:TV to help sort this out. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: Okay, I've done some more research on PI, and here's what I've found. In addition to comments from Pamzeis, I've found that the site's owner, Marc Berman, has written for other major publications, including Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (see here and here for full lists). Moreover, he is a member of the Television Critics Association and the Broadcast Journalists Television Association, which lends him some credibility. Combining all of this with the article's note that the ratings are from Nielsen, I would say that the site is generally reliable in my opinion. I haven't been able to find more information about TV Series Finale and am willing to tweak/remove it if needed, but as I stated earlier, all of its information seems to match what TV by the Numbers released for other episodes, so I think it's accurate for what I'm using it for. What do you think? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: To clarify, do you have any other suggestions for the source review? RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Some of the wording cited to FN4 seems a touch close to the source - suggest either quoting or rewording
- Is there a particular place you noticed this? There are half a dozen places where source 4 is cited, and I didn't see any clear connections in the article when I skimmed it.
  - The one in particular that caught my eye was "the idea was to be limited to just the first act, but the writing staff realized they needed to use the concept as more than a gimmick". It's certainly not close enough to be a copyright concern, but IMO would warrant use of direct quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: Oh, good catch, I missed that when I was reviewing the article. It's been reworded now. RunningTiger123 (talk)
I don't see that FN9 specifies the poles were metal?
- Fixed.
"This placed the show fourth in its time slot, behind Thursday Night Football, Young Sheldon, and A Charlie Brown Christmas" - don't see this in cited source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not directly stated, but it's clear from the listed ratings. The two other shows listed at 8:30 had better ratings, and while A Charlie Brown Christmas aired at 8:00, the fact that there is no show listed on ABC at 8:30 indicates that the show continued into that time slot.

@Nikkimaria: Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, does this look acceptable? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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