Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Live-In/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 2 February 2021 [1].

Live-In

edit
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lesser-known American sitcom that aired on CBS in 1989. I came across it to add television ratings but then discovered the episodes were available online and decided to watch them over my winter break. I have since expanded the article significantly and believe it represents the limited available sources effectively. At 1500 words, it is relatively short, but I believe it is informative and a good example of what a television series FA could look like. This article was promoted as GA earlier today, but because there isn't really anything more to add that I'm aware of, I have no qualms about nominating it for FA at this time. This is my second FAC after The Masked Singer (American TV series) which I withdrew earlier this month and will renominate at a later date. I welcome any and all comments and look forward to responding to them. Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere, such as the camera setup
  • The camera setup is a given as multiple camera angles are used in scenes, rather than one shot like a single-cam. It's also filmed in front of a live audience, unlike single-cam shows. The cameras never move around or follow the actors, unlike single-cam. I couldn't find a secondary source for this.
  • 24 minutes is the run time of all the episodes I watched online. It's also given in the timestamps. I couldn't find a secondary source.
  • Stereo sound is given as the episodes have the chyron "CBS StereoSound Where Available" at the beginning. I couldn't find a secondary source.
  • Removed the camera and sound format from infobox.
  • Fn4: are you citing the credits specifically here, or some other part of the episode?
  • There are secondary sources available for everything in the sentence but ELP Communications, which is only given in the credits. Fn4 is citing the credits. Since everything, including ELP Communications, is cited in the credits, only Fn4 is used (though others could be used for everything but ELP).
  • FN4 is citing the end credits for all of the times it is used. I have added the time parameter to the reference to indicate this.
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher/locations and how these are formatted
  • Can you point me to an instance of an inconsistency so I know what to look for?
  • It appears that's a mistake. I only meant to give locations when it is not in the work's name. Removed.
Okay, but then you've got Wall Street Journal with no location. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7: is there a reason to rely on a primary source for this? How would someone access this source?
  • It's a ticket I found on Etsy. It's the second image here. This is the only source I could find for the fact it is filmed specifically at Sunset Gower Studios.
  • Understood; removed.
  • There seem to be quite a few citations to TV schedules in a random assortment of newspapers - could you explain your approach on this?
  • This is a complex thing that deserves a paragraph to explain clearly, so I will do that in an edit very shortly.
  • Here it goes... So the books that are cited (specifically Brooks and Marsh) give an episode airing length from March 20 to June 5, 1989, meaning episodes aired between those dates (this timeline, as described further in this paragraph, includes repeats). However, when looking at the Nielsen ratings for the last episode supposedly on June 5 from USA Today, it has "(r)" next to the title, meaning it was a repeat, not a new episode. From the same source (Nielsen ratings from USA Today on ProQuest), the May 29 episode was also a repeat. On May 15 and April 24, no episodes aired. No episodes aired in irregular time slots either. This caused me to do further research as to why this was the case (how can there be eight air dates but nine episodes listed in TV guides?). A quick search on Newspapers.com on May 8 shows that according to some TV schedules, one episode aired, while other TV schedules say a different episode aired (This is further explained in note b. Additionally, there are no such glaring differences for all of the other episode air dates in TV guides). There is no book or other reliable source that I'm aware of with all of the air dates in one place, so episode titles given in the TV listings part of newspapers are used to source the air dates and titles. These titles are cited from newspapers for all but the first and seventh episodes (as the titles were not available in TV guides for those episodes). So for the first and seventh, the next best source, TV Guide, is used. I know this seems complicated but the episode titles are not given in the episode credits or anything else online, so there is really no other option. If you have any further questions about it I'd be happy to answer :)
  • Hm. Is there a reason for selecting the particular newspapers that have been chosen? Why do you believe TV Guide is less reliable than the schedules in individual newspapers? The episode list in the Leszczak book differs slightly from what's here - do you know why, and why what's here would be considered more accurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the episode titles, the newspapers that are chosen are the only ones that provide titles; most only give a couple-word summary. TV Guide is only used when necessary because one of the titles according to them is just blatantly incorrect/misspelled. It says the second episode's title is "The Coupe, the Group and Everything", but this is obviously a mistake because the main plot is about how one of the characters gets croup (a newspaper TV guide also lists it as "croup", which is what is cited). Additionally, TV Guide lists May 29 as the original air date of "Peter's I-Dented-It Crisis", but Nielsen Media Research (via USA Today) which calculates television ratings, says that the May 29 airing was a repeat of an episode (link), and the Chillicothe Gazette says it aired on April 10 (link). TV Guide also only lists four air dates and eight episodes—it doesn't seem as reliable as it normally is considered because it doesn't even have a full collection of information. This is why I chose to use TV guides in newspapers for the citations. I don't know why the Leszczak book has episodes titled "Les Liasons" and another "Harmless". This is not how the newspaper TV guide listed it. (This is my original research but it's called "Les Liaisons Harmless" because there's a French-speaking character at the beginning (hences Les) and then Lisa is found not not actually be taking over from Sarah, so she's Harmless). I honestly don't know why it's written like that in that book. Why what is cited here should be considered more accurate because it is from the time of the series directly when it aired, not from a book/website published decades later (for the sake of your question). Heartfox (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand; it's just when there's no resource with all of the dates together because it's such an obscure series, you kinda have to find your own sources lol. I get it, but it is a really unfortunate situation (though I do have to say I am confident in the sourcing of the titles and dates). Heartfox (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't a sourcing issue, but at the moment the episode summaries aren't very understandable to someone who hasn't watched the show. For example, "Lisa believes her firing is imminent, but Sarah was referring to Muriel." - referring to Muriel in what way? I would suggest checking throughout that the article is comprehensible to a non-"expert". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it's dumb but I was kind of obsessed with having plot summaries that are all only one line long on my browser. I see how the first summary could be confusing, though (in my opinion) the rest of them are pretty straightforward and just include the main thing the episode is about instead of all the irrelevant events that occurred in between. I just stumbled across the article/series so I am by no means an expert myself lol. I will go over it again tomorrow and change the first plot summary to make it more clear. Please let me know if you find anything else confusing. Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the review! I have responded above to everything but the newspapers and plot summary stuff with honest explanations. I will address the newspapers/plot summaries in an additional response tomorrow. Please tell me how to proceed with the other stuff :) Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I have responded above. The Sarah–Muriel thing was even a bit confusing for me as well, as it is never explained that Muriel works at the department store with Sarah and that Sarah is her boss until she gets fired by her. I have attempted to rewrite this to make it clearer, and have also revised a couple other of the summaries; please let me know if anything remains confusing. I will explain the newspaper TV schedules momentarily. Heartfox (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I hate to ping you as I know you are incredibly busy elsewhere, but I was just wondering if my replies to your inquiries above are satisfactory, or perhaps need more explanation, or are not acceptable at all. It is a good thing that a source review is done first thing, and so I wouldn't want to waste other reviews' time commenting if there happens to be irredeemable issues. Thanks for your dedication to the process, Heartfox (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: you could probably archive this as there doesn't seem like there will be any consensus to promote. I thank Nikkimaria for being generous and at least hearing me out, but right now I don't have confidence in the rest of the FAC process and unfortunately I do not think that the majority of the editors here understand the constraints that TV shows/Music/etc. articles often have in finding so-called "high-quality" sources (as noted above, even TV Guide was unreliable for use in this article) when their main editing focus is elsewhere and they obviously have more high-quality sources to consult. I feel in other reviews sources are being removed for the wrong reasons. Of course it is beneficial to question things, but stuff in source reviews elsewhere has gone way too far in my opinion and I do not wish to be associated with this process or continue this nomination. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Heartfox, it can be most distressing to put time and sweat into an article, searching out sources, to then have them queried or dismissed. Sadly, for some articles there simply aren't the high quality sources which would be necessary for them to become FAs. I don't know if this is the case here, but if so it would explain the impasse. I hope that at some point an editor as impressive as you will be tempted back to FAC. If you ever do consider it, feel free to ping me to give a pre-nom look over to whatever you are planning to submit. I am a decent copy editor, but I am afraid that my sourcing can be as wonky as the next editors, so it comes without warranty. Archiving as requested. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gog the Mild, I do hope to return eventually. I'm not mad at anyone or distressed about this nom, it went through GA and I didn't feel like there was any more sources to add, so I nominated it for FA as like, whatever, let's just see how it goes. Unfortunately, there is a lack of concrete sources available with regard to the air dates of specific episodes, and to a lesser extent, the titles, so there isn't a 100% guarantee everything is correct. (I get that). My concern is with some of the other noms... I just wish "high quality" was more well-defined than user essays so there could be less conflict all-around. That's all :) Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 2 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Live-In/archive1&oldid=1004514362"