Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Frickative in topic Resolved Comments from Matthewedwards

Resolved Comments from Matthewedwards

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago57 comments3 people in discussion

Oppose, for now at least

  • Per WP:BOLDTITLE, unless the article's name is repeated verbatim, and is not purely descriptive, don't bold anything. Because the article isn't called "First season", you shouldn't bold those words.
I was following advice in a peer review by bolding it. Didn't make sense to me either, so I've removed it. CycloneGU (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Per WP:LINK don't put multiple wikilinks next to each other so they look like one link. Is television series necessary? I'm not even convinced about whether "musical" and "comedy drama" need linking. Who, in the English speaking world doesn't know what these are?
I believe Frickative might've linked those, but I agree with your reasoning. I removed the first few redundant ones, I'll discuss with Frickative about any others we locate. CycloneGU (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • There are a lot of numerical figures in the second sentence of the lead, what with all the numbers of episodes and times. Since it's not disallowed by MOS:NUM, can you spell out the numbers of episodes? It looks especially weird when it says "the final 9 airing" sandwiched between two "9 pm"s.
Yeah, it might not hurt to use words in places there. Let me know if this looks any better. CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Also wrt the times, can you put "9:00 pm ET (0200 UTC)"? Not everyone works off the US time zones, and Wikipedia runs off UTC.
This is an interesting discussion, because it actually airs at 9:00 ET/PT (PT was left off incidentally, fixing that). We'd have to then list two UTC times. Does this make sense? It almost seems pointless to use UTC here because the show isn't airing, say, in England at the same time as in America and Canada. CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've analyzed this. Lost (season 1) is a featured list but does not include UTC. List_of_24_episodes is feratured but does not include broadcast times, while 24_(season_1) isn't featured. None of these articles use UTC. Is it actually a new guideline that it is required? Because we don't want to suggest that the entire world was able to watch the show at 2:00 UTC on the day in question. Also, it did only broadcast in North America on the first airing; it didn't go to other countries for possibly a few days (I think Australia was Fridays, for instance). CycloneGU (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, actually I don't think any season page mentions UTC. Thinking about it, I didn't do it on the 24 list or any others that I got featured. I was reading the WP:TIMEZONE section of MOSNUM when I suggested it, but you're right that it's really not applicable.
Also, don't fix the PT thing. I don't think it's necessary to mention the Pacific time zone. It wasn't simulcast on the West Coast after all. If you do mention Pacific, it leaves you open to questions about why you didn't to mention Central, Mountain and Arizona, also Alaska and Hawaii (and also Guam, where episodes on all networks air a full day later). It aired first on the East Coast at 9, so that's all you have to say. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Why does the Lede only say it won a Golden Globe (in a rather clumsy way), when it won 32 awards in total?
Fixed. Yeah, looked silly. CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. Periods aren't allowed? This is news to me.CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The UK is never "U.K.". "U.S." is allowed, but not when you use it in an article that also features "UK" or any other acronym that doesn't use periods. From the MOS: For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations. One thing, I'm assuming that you used some sort of text editor and did CTRL+H or some other "search and replace" function, because now when "US" appears at the end of a sentence, there's no period to mark the end of the sentence. ...and was aired on Fox in the US The executive producers were... is one. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll scan for that again tonite. I just used "find" in Firefox and changed them, but I wasn't careful to check sentence endings. I'll consider this under resolved pending any other issues relating to it. CycloneGU (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • The first time you use "UK" should be written out in full as "United Kingdom"
Fixed - Also shortened two later ones since it's technically for the first one. CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "The first two episodes were co-written by Murphy, Falchuk and Brennan, with the remainder of the season written by them individually." --> "The first two episodes were co-written by Murphy, Falchuk and Brennan; all other episodes were written by them individually."
Fixed CycloneGU (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker ranked the season ninth" put it into context. Ninth out of what? 100? That's pretty good.. 9 out of 10, that's not so good. Also, wikilink EW because you've linked all the other publications, websites and stuff.
Done. Wikilinked and put ranking into context - did the same with the TIME review which preceded it, also. Frickative 18:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Variety's Brian Lowry was critical of the season's early episodes" from the references, it seems he only wrote about the Pilot and the rebroadcast of the pilot.
Lowry's first review covers the pilot, but his second also discusses "Showmance" and "Preggers". Frickative 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay. I couldn't actually access that one because it required me to register an account (this could be a WP:V issue). I just went by publication date. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Glee Live! In Concert!." Extra punct.
Removed. Frickative 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Change the "awards" section name to "accolades".. It seems to be current practice
Done. Frickative 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Glee received three nominations for the Teen Choice Awards in 2009,[94] and 13 in 2010" comparable numbers should be in the same format. Since every other award and nomination count is spelled out, so should "13"
Done. Frickative 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Glee – Pilot Episode: Director's Cut was released on Region 1 DVD in America on September 1, 2009" -- don't use "America" unless you're referring to the continent. Canada, Greenland, Mexico and Central America, Cuba, the Caribbean are all in "America"
Done. Changed to "the US". Frickative 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Any info on DVD release in Ireland, New Zealand, or South Africa, just to encompass the other major English speaking territories?
Added some sources on all three. Ireland and NZ release dates are the same as the UK and Australia respectively, and it seems only one of the four DVDs has so far been released in South Africa. Frickative 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We've been working over MSN and I located those sources while she was editing. It turns out that the South Africa release of the Road to Sectionals DVD was only four days ago! Thus, I don't expect the others to appear there for some time. CycloneGU (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove the flags in the tables. MOS:FLAG. Use "Region 1" "Region 2" etc
Done. Frickative 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done. Frickative 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "The first season ... originally aired between May 19, 2009 and June 8, 2010" -- according to the press release] issued by Fox, the pilot aired in May as a "special preview" for marketing purposes, and the season (actually "show" but since this is the first season it's the same thing) "launch[ed] in the fall"
Studying this. CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is mentioned in the "Production" section - happy to clarify in the lead, but does the "Original run" in the infobox also need to be changed? Not sure how best to reflect the different preview/season dates there. Frickative 19:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
If it were me I would probably change it, but I guess it depends how you decide to handle the phrasing in the Lede. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done - amended the lede to read "The pilot episode was broadcast as an advanced preview of the series on May 19, 2009, with the remainder of the season airing between September 9, 2009 and June 8, 2010." Also changed the original run in the ibox to Sep 9 - June 8. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • The WP:LEDE needs expanding to introduce all elements of the article. There is no mention of cast, characters, critical response, or home media release.
Will study this. Give us some time on this one. CycloneGU (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done. Though mentioning the main cast and characters in the lead introduced a lot of successive wikilinks, and I'm not entirely sure whether that runs contrary to your second point? Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Joss Whedon guest-directed the episode 'Dream On'." Are the other named directors on staff?
Actually, he did it himself. Frickative just came online, she'll look at that. CycloneGU (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what you mean by did it himself. What I referred to is that it doesn't say that any of the other directors guest-directed. So my question is are they on staff, ie work on the show full time? Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I truly don't know the answer to this one. I suspect that at least Elodie Keene and John S. Scott are on staff, but I can't find anything to confirm or deny this. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I feel like there's some information missing from the Production section. All it is doing right now is mentioning certain Crew. What about when it was produced, where, and how? Was it shot on film or tape, how were the musical numbers chosen? Why were some episodes like the Madonna one themed?
Will study this. CycloneGU (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • It isn't necessary to give two columns of episode numbers in the table. It's the first season. Each number is the same whether it's the series or season number.
We discussed this earlier in the week - Cyclone agreed with you and removed one of the columns, but I pointed out that the table is transcluded to List of Glee episodes and so the columns would be out of sync with other seasons. Many featured episode lists include both columns for the first season, eg. 24, 30 Rock, Supernatural, Lost. I am happy to re-evaluate my stance on this point if you feel strongly about it, though. Frickative 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
<rant>I have major issues with transclusion, so it's a good job that the main list page isn't here! One issue is that if this table is broken or there is incorrect information in it, it shows up on two pages. That can't be good. Also, because we're the encyc "that anyone can edit", how many unregistered visitors will actually know what to do when they see {{:Glee (season 1)}}. I know there's the argument that if it's not transcluded and the same table appears on both pages, then one is incorrect and we have two pages with conflicting information. But it still makes it a whole lot easier for a visitor to fix which I think corresponds more with our ethos. We're not here to alienate new editors and for me that's what transcluding does. Only seasoned editors know what to do with it and there's too much stuff on this site already that favours regular editors over visitors and readers.Another issue is that what appears on one page doesn't have attribution in the page history, which it should per the CC license. Also, when I got List of 24 episodes promoted, it wasn't transcluded and I'm a bit narked to discover that it is now.</rant>
As Frickative states, I actually did remove one column this week. I felt quite strongly that the series # column was not necessary for the single season page until she mentioned the transclusion, so I restored the original version. I agree it's not needed, but transclusion does have its merits. Also, we can notate in a comment not to edit the text that causes the rest to be transcluded over. It does have a benefit in only having to edit once, not twice.
We are chatting right now about which pages should have what. CycloneGU (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I anticipate being reverted on this one, but per your concerns I've manually duplicated the table into 'List of Glee episodes', and reduced the ep# columns in the season 1 table to just the one. Frickative 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "warm embrace that — let’s face it — you just don't want to let go." please follow WP:DASH, even in quotes
Done. Dashes and hyphens are not my strong point, but I'll try and take care of these now. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Why is "short–listed" written with an endash?
Fixed. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "four-disc", "seven-disc" vs "4–disc"; "box set" vs "box–set". Please use WP:HYPHENS when they're supposed to be there, not WP:ENDASHES.
Fixed. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Also be consistent about the use of WP:DASHES in general. The first half of the article uses Emdashes, but the lower half uses endashes

I haven't reviewed the summaries because I only watched the first four episodes and now I'm waiting for the full season box set. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've left some responses where necessary. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some more things

  • Why is the Music section a subsection of Reception? I can understand mentioning how the music was received, but the first paragraph is about the music itself, and seems more suited to the Production section or something.
I did wonder about this myself. I've moved the first paragraph up to production, but left the chart/certification summary under reception. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't know what's going on with the coding for the references, but Wikipedia:FN#How to use says "Three-column lists (and larger) are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided unless they are supporting shortened footnotes." It's showing up as only 2 on my notebook, but as 4 on my laptop and it's a bit ugly and hard to read.
I'm not sure why it was doing that. I've changed it to a standard {{tl:Reflist|2}}, which unfortunately doesn't work at all with my browser (Chrome), but hopefully that's stopped it splitting into 3 or more columns. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ref 2 (Variety) is the same as ref 57
Oops. Fixed. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I can't access the third and 4th Variety refs because it's telling me to register. Potential WP:V issues? I don't know if anyone else is having this problem, or what current practices are when it comes to dealing with this issue. Maybe note in the cite templates that registration is required?
I think Variety has a limit to free viewings before registration is necessary, but per WP:PAYWALL, I don't believe that conflicts with verifiability policy. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ref 64 for Rolling Stone is showing up dead with the EL checker
That site has been a little bit wobbly the past few days, but it seems to be fine now. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)* Is the DVD special features content notable? If it's been given coverage in secondary sources, I'm fine with it, otherwise it just seems like we're saying "this is why you should by the DVD", and that should be left to Amazon.Reply
This came up at peer review - I created the table based on the content of other FLs. Bignole said that he would be starting a discussion at MOSTV to try and formulate consensus over whether or not special features should be included, and suggested leaving it in until consensus had been reached. Frickative 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Finally,

  • Until you pointed it out above, I hadn't realised that there was a List of Glee episodes page. It seems very strange to have a series article, a list of episodes article, and a season article for a show that is only 1 season long. Despite all the work that's gone into it, I'm now beginning to wonder whether this page should even exist.
  • Not trying to sound like an AFD argument, but even with a new season on the way there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for keeping this page by arguing that Glee (TV series) and List of Glee episodes will be too large unless separate season pages stay. The main Glee article is very good as a summary article. All the major sections that are likely to grow are summaries of other articles, such as the Music section, Cast and characters, episodes, awards, discography. The only thing missing IMO may be a "merchandise" article for music, DVDs, books, video games etc. Other sections that aren't Summaries of other pages such as ratings and critical reception will shrink and develop properly naturally as the series progresses. Because Glee (TV series) is let's say a "level one" summary style article, and List of Glee episodes is a "level 2" summary style article, this page should contain all the major points in detail. But instead, apart from the episode descriptions, it doesn't. This page is the summary of the main Glee (TV series), and it shouldn't happen like that. A reader doesn't want to, or shouldn't have to, go from a well detailed article to a sub-article with less detail, to a third sub-article with even less or repeated detail. He should go from a article that summarises the main points to sub-articles that offer more detail, more information.
I'm quite sorry to say all this because I most likely would have supported once my initial concerns were addressed. After reading the two "parent articles" though, I truly believe that everything is backwards here and so right now my oppose stands. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh dear - this very topic came up on the main Glee talkpage back in January when the article was first created, and I made some of the very same points you've raised now (full discussion here). As such, I can't fundamentally disagree with you, but I would really like for the last seven months of editing not to have been a complete waste of time :( Do you think there is a viable way of redressing the balance here and justifying the existence of Glee (season 1) and Glee (season 2) as separate entities to Glee (TV series) and List of Glee episodes?
Looking through it, the parent Glee article is currently sitting just below 100kb, at the point WP:SIZERULE says almost certainly should be split, so I think subsuming all the new information from the forthcoming seasons into it would soon present a length issue.
  • The "Production" section of 'Glee (season 1)', as you said above, needs some further fleshing out, which I think I can do in a way that won't just be a duplication of the same section in 'Glee (TV series)'. Certainly, the 'Music' subsection there can have some points excised, leaving an overview of the whole series, with the season articles going into further specifics on artists covered within those series, eg. Madonna, Lady Gaga in s1, Britney Spears in s2. There are also different creative aspects to the different seasons - midway through s1 an executive decision was made to include more musical numbers per episode, whereas s2 will be more character-focussed. I can certainly expand on those areas in the relevant articles with a little research.
  • Cast - I have been thinking for a while that the section in 'Glee (TV series)' is becoming overly long, especially wrt guest stars, of which there are already many more lined up for s2. Would it be better if I condensed it into a more concise overview, and went into more detail on season specific guest-stars in the season articles? Granted there is 'Characters of Glee', but in that article, the main guest-stars are presented in alphabetically ordered subsections, not in any season-specific order.
  • Critical reception and ratings, as you say, will certainly shrink in the near future so as not to give undue weight to the first season. S1 ratings definitely won't need such an intricate level of detail in the main article, so I think this info is best retained in the season one article? I could certainly begin this process now, so 'Glee (TV series)' is more of a summary of 'Glee (season 1)' than the other way around.
  • Awards - another area that could be covered more concisely in 'Glee (TV series)'. Certainly once nominations begin to roll in for s2, it won't be appropriate to go into so much intricate detail in the parent article. Granted, the major awards such as the Emmys and Golden Globes should still be covered, but I don't know that the nitty gritty such as every single sound or costuming award picked up by the crew needs detailing. Whereas in the s1 article it would be more appropriate to give a full overview.
  • DVDs - here in 'Glee (TV series)' perhaps I could just cover original release dates, and leave information on all regions for the season articles. It's a reasonable length at present, but if every season has 3 or 4 box sets and the parent article tries to cover the releases of every single one in every single region, I think it would grow unwieldy.
I suppose what I'm driving at is - 'Glee (TV series)' is at the point where splitting into sub-articles is appropriate. If I were to reduce the amount of season specific information there, would 'Glee (season 1)' then have a more defensible purpose? I really want to find a way to make this work, but I'll hang fire on actioning your earlier points for the time being.
Sincere thanks for taking so much time to review the article, it is much appreciated. (On a semi-related note, I've been toying with the idea of a merchandise article for a few weeks, but I wasn't sure how common they were, so it's good to hear one of those would be okay.) Frickative 23:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Matthew, are you suggesting that the information on cast, accolades, and other things are best left to the parent article? I'm sure we can balance that out; do you know of another T.V. series currently with FLs that we can model after to make it more appropriate? CycloneGU (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
First of all, I just want you guys to know that I'm not saying that what you've done the last few months is a waste of time. Currently, the season article is a summary of the series article. Because the show is currently just one season, a lot of it here is simply repeated information. As I said, it's all backwards. I think if you take the majority of what's in the series article and add the episode list to that, you've got what is a possible Featured article candidate because there's way more detailed info there that is relevant to the season than what's in the season 1 page. The series article needs to be a summary of the entire series and as the second season airs, a lot of what's there will need cutting out anyway as you focus only on the main points, which is what the season article currently does.
CycloneGU, no I'm saying the info on cast, accolades and such should be written about in detail at the season page, with a brief overview at the parent page. The TV shows I can think of that have Featured or Good parent articles, and Featured episodes lists and seasons are:
As you read through them all, I think you'll find that there is less information about individual seasons at the main series articles, and the season pages give more detailed, specific information. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the Featured Article candidate bit...I actually went there first without peer review (withdrew for a peer review), and they still consider it a list so they think it's more an FL. Personally, I agree that FAC makes more sense. CycloneGU (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I might have misread. If I am mistaken, please let me know. CycloneGU (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
In this format it is, but if stuff was switched around a bit, it could be more Featured article-like that contains a list: Parks and Recreation (season 1), Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1) and Supernatural (season 2). I left a note at WT:TV about my comments here just in case I'm completely wrong about all this. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi Matthew, and thanks again for your comments. I definitely take your point about the amount of duplicated information. After reading the examples you gave with Lost, 30 Rock etc., I moved a copy of the main series article into my sandbox and started cutting out parts I felt were season-specific rather than relevant to the whole series, and managed to trim it down by about 15kb, without, I felt, any real detriment to the series article. I believe in turn that I could conceivably edit relevant sections of the season article so that 'series' becomes more a summary of 'season' than vice versa. That said, I don't want to get started right away if you feel there's no conceivable way 'Glee (season 1)' could pass FL at the present time. In the meantime, I'll try and carry on addressing your previous points. Frickative 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Do you plan on adding the bits you cut out from the main series page into the season page? I think you should carry on editing for now and keep the nomination open. I'm the only person who's done a full review so far, anyway. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that was the idea. It was a bit of a rough job in my sandbox, but I'll give it a go in the mainspace now and see how it goes. Frickative 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Glee_(season_1)/archive1&oldid=1136060600"