Wikipedia:Peer review/Glee (season 1)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glee (season 1)[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Glee (season 1) is now complete and Frickative (talk) and I have both been working quite hard to make this page one of the best in the television articles, and are hoping to improve the article to GA GL or possibly even FA FL status. What would be useful for both of us is some additional critique on any little possibly-overlooked bits. I have some concerns about the Music header (under Reception) as to whether more needs to be done there, in particular, but any section that needs some work I'd love to know. Anyone willing to help with references? That would be a great help, as there could be one or two dead ones out of over a hundred (I already tagged #49). It's a very well-referenced article (Frickative has been working overtime getting legitimate references) and we both want to know what more needs to be done to finish it up!

Frickative may add on here herself with her own concerns. Ignore the FAC bit on the talk page, I submitted there a few days ago instead of doing this step and may be going back to FL eventually; just not sure if I should remove that from the talk page since I withdrew the nomination.

In the meantime, many thanks! CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article or a season list? There tends to be a difference in what is expected. Right now, what I see is a season list, based on a comparison of this page to other season lists and the few season articles that exist. Which are you striving to become?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the FA in Cyclone's opening was a typo, but I believe it was agreed we would aim for a FL submission. As far as I'm concerned, at least, it is a season list. I know there would need to be significant expansion in key areas of production - writing, filming etc. to shoot for FA, and at present I don't believe an adequate depth of coverage exists to do so. Frickative 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is correct (I know I'm replying after the comment below mine). I meant GL or FL, as Frickative did agree that it seems to be a list instead, and my faux pas going to FA without a peer review did bring up the comment that it's a list as well. I checked others (i.e. List of 24 episodes) which are FL already, and they are the same kind of article as this. I've corrected the above care of a penmark. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll look at the page more as soon as I can (hopefully tonight). I just wanted to know how I should be viewing the page before I did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. Need to bold either "first season", "first season" and "Glee", or "first season of Glee" (the latter would require a tweaking of the sentence), per the WP:LEAD requirements. If you choose any variation that includes "Glee", then you need to delink the title and link it again somewhere else since you are not supposed to link and bold at the same time. There does not appear to be uniformity across FL season pages with this, so just pick some variation of the above.
  2. Don't need to know who "produced" the series, unless it's different than the primary broadcaster, since in 90% of cases the primary broadcaster is the producer of the series. Example: Veronica Mars was produced by Warner Bros. but aired on UPN (which is own by CBS). I think what you could do is point out that Ryan Murphy's company co-produced the series alongside 20th Century Fox. That would give it a little more relevance when reading it. Otherwise it just comes off as a IMDb reading of the company credits.
  3. "The series focuses on a high school glee club called New Directions, set within the fictional William McKinley High School in Lima, Ohio. The season consists of 22 episodes. The pilot episode was broadcast as an advanced preview on May 19, 2009, followed by a further 12 episodes from September 9, 2009 to December 9, 2009. The season resumed for a further nine episodes from April 13, 2010 to June 8, 2010. The first 13 episodes of the season aired on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET), while the final nine episodes aired on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." - Little too much detail in the lead. I would separate the description of the series from the broadcast info. Move the broadcast info to the first paragraph and trim it to: "The season consisted of 22 episodes, with the first 13 episodes airing on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET) and the final 12 airing on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." - More terse. We don't need to know about when each segment aired in the lead, and we already know the premiere date because it's mentioned in the first sentence.
  4. Following that, I'd probably provide just a touch more detail into the series description (which should either end the first paragraph or be the start of the second paragraph), basically summarizing any major storylines for the season into a couple of sentences. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if it even has storylines.
  5. The reception stuff in the lead is also a bit detailed for a lead. I would do more summarizing and less listing every song or episode that won something. The first sentence is largely fine, but for the rest you can easily summarize it as "multiple songs breaking the Top 10 music rankings in various countries around the world"....or something to that effect. Otherwise, you're not leaving much for the reader to read when they get down to the music section. All the good stuff has already been stated in the lead. The lead should entice them to read further.
  6. The last bit about the reviews and awards is perfect a part from the final statement identifying the Golden Globe award it won. Just because it won that award doesn't make it more important than any of the others. Some might think and Emmy nom is more important (just pointing it out).
  7. Ordering - I don't know why articles are doing this, but for some reason season lists seem to be the only pages (from television or film) that put the episode table dead last. Plot sections are designed to be used to provide context to any real world info (production, awards, reception, etc.). They cannot do that if they are last. You're supposed to read them, then when you read what went into making them, or what critics thought about them, those later aspects make more sense because you understand the scenes of what happened before hand. I kind of get the initial idea of following chronological order of things (production, broadcast, reception), but you definitely don't win awards before an episode is aired. There's been talk on the MOS about trying to put in specific wording about such things, but I think everyone got busy and stopped talking about because it's not an imperative issue with articles.
  8. Reception section - Looks good, but be weary when doing such huge chunks of quotes from critics. This section shouldn't look like the back of a DVD box (i.e. picking tagline quotes) or just a copy/paste of what they said. Paraphrasing is our friend, and it's especially our friend on Wikipedia since we have a license to produce non-free content under encyclopedic guidelines. :D Other than that, it looks good. Good sources (CNN, TIME, Variety, etc.)
  9. P.S. When quoting, you do not use ":" unless you have briefly summarized what the person was saying beforehand. For example, "He rose to address the meeting: "(Ahem) ... Ladies and gentlemen, welcome!""
  10. "The second episode, "Showmance", premiered on September 9, 2009, averaging 7.30 million viewers and achieving a 3.5/9 rating/share in the 18-49 demographic, making it Fox's best scripted premiere in three years." - How does the second episode's airing break a premiere record? Premieres are typically pilot episodes.
  11. Becareful with the DVD release section. I'm not sure what other articles are doing (I didn't look at their sections), but this shouldn't be a place where we're selling the DVD. In other words, we're not here to just list all the specs that a DVD contains. IMDb, Amazon, and other vendors take care of that type of stuff. This section should really focus on sales of DVD (if you can find it...not a mandatory thing), controversial removals (e.g., episodes that were controversial and subsequently not placed in the DVD box set), major differences between releases (e.g., same as above, but seen between countries), etc. You can do basic table layouts, including basic info like number of discs, episode count, release dates in all regions, but I think that for some reason pages have start to go overboard and include every minor spec on the DVD boxset like it was taken from the back of the box or some press release. I think the MOS needs to address this issue, because right now it's just barebones on what it expects in the section.
  1.  Done CycloneGU (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Done (updated) CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Done for lead, have not dissected the other text anywhere and will let Frickative handle that. CycloneGU (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Done now after discussion. "The show features the fictional high school show choir New Directions competing for the first time on the show choir circuit, while its members deal with relationship, sexuality and social issues." CycloneGU (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Done CycloneGU (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Done - Is this what you meant with naming the award, just say that it won one award? CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Done - Now a sub-section of "Production" CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'll let Frickative handle that as she wrote the section initially, I just split off the Music subsection within it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thanks Cyclone, I'll leave your comment as I don't think we're meant to refactor other people's messages in discussions, but I've taken a stab at the paraphrasing. I've cut out all the long copy/paste quotes and I hope it's okay, but as it's not my strong point in general, I'd appreciate a second opinion on that. Frickative 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Done - I hope! CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Done - Just removed that last tagbit, you are absolutely correct and I missed that before. May 2009 was the premiere, with the pilot. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is because the pilot originally aired as an "advanced preview", so some outlets make a distinction and class "Showmance" as the actual season premiere episode. It's a bit intricate for the casual reader, so probably better removed, but I will add a sentence to "Production" explaining the non-standard scheduling. Frickative 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Not done at this time - see discussion following. May be updated in coming days after said discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For #2, instead of "The season was produced by 20th Century Fox Television and Ryan Murphy Television, and the executive producers were series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, and Dante Di Loreto." - I mean you could do more like, "The series was executive produced by Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk, and Dante Di Loreto; Murphy's production company helped co-produced the series alongside 20th Century Fox." - This way, instead of saying "it aired on Fox" and following that immediately with "It was produced by 20th Century Fox", you change the focus to be more on Murphy and you do it by reordering things and not actually removing any text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your phrasing better, and I've taken it a step further putting the episode tally before that as part of the first sentence, leaving me a small rewrite. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it further because it was a really long sentence (borderline run-on). Just swapped the order and put in a period. Looks good otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone through the list, I have a couple I'm still looking at (please see my comment on #9 and reply below here as well) and Frickative can edit behind me for some things. Will post again when done. In the meantime, please feel free to check what I've done so far. =) Currently working on #11. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

  1. "Jean Bentley of MTV described the season as "uneven", comparing it to the final episode, "Journey", in that it: "started out with a promising, action-packed plot, impressed with a couple of flashy musical numbers, then got too cheesy for its own good and petered out with an overly sentimental song."" - Here, it is used mid statement. In this case nothing should follow "it" other than the quoted text. No comma, no colon, nothing but the quotation mark and the text. This is because it's being presented as part of the statement.
  2. "James Poniewozik of Time ranked it the eighth best television show of 2009, commenting: "when Glee works—which is often—it is transcendent, tear-jerking and thrilling like nothing else on TV. [...] It can be a mess, but it's what great TV should be: reckless, ambitious, heart-on-its-sleeve and, thanks especially to Jane Lynch as drill-sergeant cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester, gaspingly funny. When it hits its high notes, nothing else matters." - This is borderline. It could be considered ok when looking at the opening statement, but because the piece is so large is would probably be bettere served in some other way.
  3. "In contrast, Raymund Flandez of The Wall Street Journal commented: "It's been a long premiere season of ups and downs, and this last show is a warm embrace that — let’s face it — you just don't want to let go."" - "In contrast" isn't enough to justify the colon usage. You'd simply use a comma here.
  • These are all the instances of colon quoting (pardon the phrase) used in the article. It's in the reception section and if more paraphrasing was used in this section the colons would actually be of good use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad...I thought you were talking about quotes within quotes hence my sandwich example. Now I understand and will look at that.
As for the DVD section, I'm looking at this. I think the section that Frickative started was modelled after this, and it also lists the features of the DVD. Are you saying that we should try to omit use of any special features? In other words, put in the set details but cut special features entirely? CycloneGU (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is that we're not here to sell DVDs, so identifying ever spec doesn't hold actual encyclopedic value without context. For right now, leave it as it is. I'm going to start a discussion here in the coming days (so long as I don't forget) to get a formalized consensus for the MOSTV page that addresses what these sections should and should not cover. I think that a couple of people started this and since we typically say "look at othre FAs or Fls" for examples it tends to grow before it's really been addressed. This is why for many years every film and TV article had trivia sections. Because it was something done and no one discussed it until much later. So, for now just leave it till it can be discussed further by the community.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check. I will leave it for now and update my list above based on this discussion.
Another update: I've put a blockquote on the "borderline" one, and am contemplating another which I have not decided on yet. I've reviewed the quotes and see no further colons in that section that don't fit at current glance, but may change my mind on that. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You caught my mistake not moving the note related to the episode summary. I caught it as well but forgot to go back and move it as I was working on something else at the time. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - Pages really only need to be linked once, unless the primary page is really long then you'd link the first instance and one way down the page if needed. I've seeing more and more overlinking issues with crew and actors being linked multiple times. I think the producers are linked at least 3 in the first 3 sections (including the lead).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and take care of this now. Question, though: I know names should generally be linked on first mention, but as the episode table is transcluded to the list of episodes, is it better to leave them linked there, and delink the names in the production section instead? Frickative 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is first mention. After that, unless it's long as stated, then link later on. (I didn't know that was allowed, and I didn't study the linking myself.) CycloneGU (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that if they're linked in "Production" but not "Episodes", they won't be linked anywhere at List of Glee episodes which isn't ideal. Unless we move "Episodes" so it's the top section in the article? Frickative 14:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ignore that suggestion, I just realised it would leave an ungainly whitespace until the bottom of the infobox. Frickative 14:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole, except for the DVD bit, the list is completed. Would you mind another quick read seeing if there is anything else glaring to take care of?

Also, anyone else coming here is welcome to contribute as well! =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Frickative about linking, you can either delink the production section and leave it in the episode table or move the table to the top. I understand the ugliness of having the big white space there, but some browsers automatically correct it. It's probably better to delink the production section either way, because there they are all crammed together and it just looks like a big blue blob. To Cyclone, it's all looking great. I'll try and give another pass over it ASAP.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it's been a few days inactive, so I'm going to call the peer review completed. Thanks for the help! =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Glee_(season_1)/archive1&oldid=1138561521"