Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Head over Heels (U.S. TV series)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2018 [1].

Head over Heels (U.S. TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about an American television sitcom created by Jeff Franklin which aired on United Paramount Network (UPN) from August 26 to October 28, 1997. The series revolves around two brothers (played by Peter Dobson and Mitchell Whitfield, respectively), who own the Head Over Heels video dating agency based in Miami Beach, Florida. The episodes include their employees, played by Eva LaRue, Patrick Bristow, and Cindy Ambuehl.

Initially cast as the main characters' mother, Connie Stevens was removed from Head Over Heels after its pilot episode was retooled. With its inclusion of the bisexual Ian, Head Over Heels was one of 30 programs to feature a gay, lesbian or bisexual character that season. Response to the series was primarily negative, with its humor and characters criticized. It was the lowest-performing series tracked by Nielsen Holdings for the 1997–1998 television season. It could be said that neither critics nor audiences were head over heels about this television program.

This is my eighth FAC on a television show article, following the successful promotion of seven other ones. I think I have a firm grasp on the FA expectations for this type of article, though I will greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions. This is what the article looked life before I worked on it. This is yet another one of my projects on an obscure series from UPN. One of these days I am going to work on a television show that people actually remember lol. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheJoebro64 edit

  • "the series was noted for not having a black main character"—noted by whom?
  • "...she identifies as a feminist. the bisexual..."—the "T" in "the" should be capitalized
  • In the second paragraph of Premise and characters, I don't think "guest-starred" needs a hyphen
  • Same goes for "executive-produced" in the first paragraph of Production

Those are the only things that stood out to me. Otherwise, I think this is a great little article that would look great with a bronze star. Nice work JOEBRO64 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheJoebro64: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind response! Since you addressed my comments, I'll support promotion. JOEBRO64 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Lead prose (1a):

  • "critics noted that the series does not a black main character." – ?
  • "With its inclusion of the heterosexual Ian," – well, I'm being sarcastic. But your wording ("With its inclusion of the bisexual Ian,") really does mark anyone outside a hetero-norm like an animal in a zoo. Why not just: "With its inclusion of Ian, Head Over Heels was one of 30 programs to feature a gay, lesbian or bisexual character that season.
  • Another with, and a conjunction that might be used only in desperation: "Response to the series was primarily negative, with its humor and characters criticized." Consider this suggestion: "Response to the series criticized its humor and characters, and was mostly negative."

Spot-checks of prose (1a):

  • "The series revolves around" again, so soon after?
  • "Jack is a ladies' man who dates clients" – it's ok, but something in me bristles about the gendered expression, which has always been perniciously ironic. Consider: "Jack dates female clients"? It's sharp enough a proposition.
  • Does "receptionist" need to be linked?
  • "Created and executive produced by" – I've never seen that verb. Can the text be reworded?

Doesn't American neoliberal capitalism turn out some garbage. Yuck. I dislike the topic so much I recuse myself from any judgment. But the prose doesn't thrill me for an FAC. Tony (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tony1: Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them. I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out other areas where the prose needs work, but I understand if you would prefer not to do so. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba, I might, but other FACs are more pressing. I'd be pleased to know that you've absorbed some principles for straightening out your prose more generally. Tony (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tony1: Thank you. All I can do is continue working. Good luck with the other FACs. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summary, I guess: watch for word/phrase reps (search box is useful in Word and on this site). Print out a draft and red-pen it away from your normal work area. All I can say at the moment. Tony (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AmericanAir88 edit

  • "Response to the series was primarily negative; commentators criticized its humor and characters.": Needs a rework. Perhaps ("The response to the series was primarily negative with commentators criticizing its humor and characters)
  • I have revised it, but I used a different wording as the "with..." construction is discouraged in a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With its inclusion of Ian, Head Over Heels was one of 30 programs that season to feature a gay, lesbian or bisexual character." Could use better clarification and this sentence appears in the lead and broadcast history making it repetitive. Mix it up in the BH section AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They run the business with the goal of “help[ing] people find love and mak[ing] a reasonable profit”.": Confusing sentence that could be expanded and reworked.
  • Removed as the sentence does not add much (i.e. anyone running a dating agency would be doing it to help people fall in love and make money). Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While working as a "romance engineer" for the dating service,[7] Carmen is completing her PhD in human behavior and sexuality;[3] she identifies as a feminist.": The ending is awkward and could be better clarified.
  • "Television critics noted Head Over Heels' frequent sex comedy,[1][5][12] including The Washington Post's Tom Shales calling it a "smutcom".": Needs a rework. Perhaps ("Television critics such as The Washington Post's Tom Shales noted the the shows frequent sex comedy, calling it a "smutcom".
  • I have revised it with something else. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Despite the casting changes, a Turner Classic Movies contributor described Head Over Heels as "resurrect[ing] the acting career of Connie Stevens".": Very confusing sentence. Which contributor? Also could use some clarification.
  • Can you find US viewers for any other episodes? If not thats ok but please try as it looks awkward with only one show having viewers.
  • I could only find ratings information on one episode. It is an older show that did not receive much attention so . Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion: Should "Broadcast history" be changed to "Production"?
  • No. The information in that section strictly deals with information about its broadcast. There is already a "Production" section that deals with the production of the show. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contains duplinks with many being names. Do you best to remove the ones where links are not necceszrry.
  • I am not sure what you mean by this as I have linked everything once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Could you point to any links that are used more than once? Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well written and good effort article. Good luck. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AmericanAir88: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Excellent work, giving my Support AmericanAir88(talk) 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07 edit

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this, Aoba47. I'd read the article last week when you first contacted me about it, but ended up completely forgetting. Apologies. I have to say though, if I'd responded last week, I would've ended up writing something very similar to what @Tony1: said above. Certain aspects of the prose were a bit... lacking. Thankfully, AmericanAir88's review above seems to have addressed all of the most glaring examples I spotted. After re-reading, I'm happy with the prose on the body. The only suggestion I'd make is to tighten up the lead a bit further: "The series revolves around brothers Jack and Warren Baldwin (played by Peter Dobson and Mitchell Whitfield, respectively), who own the Head Over Heels video dating agency based in Miami Beach, Florida. The episodes include their employees, played by Eva LaRue, Patrick Bristow, and Cindy Ambuehl. The series frequently employs sex comedy. Andrew Gottlieb ...".

  • "The episodes include their employees," doesn't sound right, and "The series frequently employs sex comedy." seems to come out of nowhere; is it related to the next sentence—Is Andrew Gottlieb known for sex comedy sitcoms?

I'd re-write this to something like: "The series is set in the eponymous video dating agency based in Miami Beach, Florida, which is run by brothers Jack and Warren Baldwin (played by Peter Dobson and Mitchell Whitfield, respectively). The remainder of the cast consists of their employees, played by Eva LaRue, Patrick Bristow, and Cindy Ambuehl." I'd then continue the casting theme by including the sentence about Connie Stevens being removed after the pilot episode here, followed by the sentence about the producers. Then I'd incorporate the 'sex comedy' bit into the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph, about the critical reception: "The series received a negative response from commentators, who criticized its characters and broad sex comedy humor."

Aside from those fairly minor points, I can't see any other prose issues. Would be happy to support once the lead gets a makeover. Homeostasis07 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Homeostasis07: Thank you for the comments. I found them to be very helpful. I have always been terrible at writing the lead section, so I will make sure to be more careful and take more time and care when writing them in the future. Hope you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bilorv edit

Resolved comments from — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor prose issues:
  • "Portrayed as opposites of one another, Warren is more involved in managing the agency than Jack." – It seems odd to call them opposites and then only mention one of their behaviours. Is Jack lazy? Irresponsible?
  • The following sentence includes further information on their contrasting behavior (i.e. Jack is a womanizer and Warren is not). The sentence cited actually mentions both of their behavior patterns (.e. Warren cares about running the agency while Jack is not as active). Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the celebrities guest star as themselves? If so, mention this. If not, mention their characters. (And this might be a good opportunity to avoid the sea of blue issue with "Jim Lange guest starred".)
  • Good point. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading to The Washington Post's Tom Shales describing it" – I think this sounds better as "lead The Washington Post's Tom Shales to describe it".
  • Good point. I have revise it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I forgot to change the last part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A writer for Turner Classic Movies wrote" – Replace either "writer" or "wrote" with a synonym.
  • Thank you for pointing this. I am surprised that I did not catch this earlier >< Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following "a creative change"" – Where is the quote from? The network? (Change to "following what it described as "a creative change"") Stevens, years later? (Change to "following what she later described as "a creative change"".) etc.
  • The quote is from the network so I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was removed from the show" – Maybe "never appeared in the show" would be a bit clearer.
  • "one of 30 programs that season" – ... in the U.S.? The scope is important context.
  • In the third paragraph of Broadcast history, two consecutive sentences use semicolons – replace one of them with a comma and a connective.
  • I decided to just remove the semicolons from that part. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:

  • Is there a good reason why the plot summaries are so short? MOS:TVPLOT says "plot summaries no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table", and granted there's no lower limit but it gives you an idea of the norm, and even among FAs it looks like there's a minimum of 50 words per episode. I suppose my issue here is that the article has a problem with due weight when so little of it is about the actual show itself.
  • Full episodes of the series are not available to the best of my knowledge so I can only rely on what other publications say the episodes are about. It would be ideal to add more information, but I am not sure where I can find it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I thought this might be the case. I'll have a little think about this. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the five episodes that were ordered but didn't air ever produced / what stage were they at when the show was cancelled? Were the episodes that aired the first eight that were produced, or did they skip some episodes in the middle? (If you could find production codes, that would give it away.) Do we have any titles of or details about unbroadcast episodes? And was the pilot ever released/broadcast? If these questions are unanswerable, fine, but I'm just checking that you've considered them.
  • I cannot find any reliable sources that cover this information when writing the article and during its GAN. Since it is a rather obscure show from 1990s, I am doubtful if any exist. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the sitcom Cuts" – Looking at the source, this should be Hitz.
  • "cited Valentina and the Baldwins' mother as examples of the series' poor representation of women" – This needs explanation of what about the characters is poor. Looking at the review, the critic's issues seem to be the sexualisation of Valentina, and the fact that the Baldwins' mother is defined in relation to her boyfriend.

While I was here, I made this tiny edit unrelated to the FA criteria. Overall, very good job digging up these sources – even getting viewing figures for just one episode must have been difficult – and I love seeing edits like this (from 5kB to 28kB!), but there's a few issues at present. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review, and apologies for some of these silly mistakes ><. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if I forgot anything or if anything else needs improvement. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the speedy response! I'll have a final look over the article tomorrow. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I don't think there's anything that can be done about the episode table's plot descriptions, but a couple of the sources do have a few more details for the article. Maybe a fuller description of the first episode can be added to the last paragraph of "Premise and characters" from this:

  • Episode 1 features a fashion show: "The show manages to squeeze a tacky bikini beachwear exhibition into its first episode." (San Francisco Chronicle review) / "parades a bunch of skimpily clad, leggy babes down a fashion-show runway" (LATimes review)
  • "The move is tested when Warren takes up with Nikki (Heidi Mark), the agency's newest — and presumably most desirable — client. Naturally, the policy is abandoned when Jack catches Warren and Nikki in a post-coital afterglow while sitting on the floor of Warren's office." (Variety review)

Also, the Entertainment Weekly source gives overall viewing figures of 2.7 million, which should be mentioned. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final point: "Storylines include a policy which bans agency employees from dating their clients" – Move this bit to the next sentence so that all the description of the pilot is together. Just "storylines include" and two examples works fine. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have moved the sentence, and cut down one of the examples. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After one small edit, I'm happy to support promotion to FA. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tintor2 edit

There is not much that other editors but shouldn't the episode summary be expanded a bit. Also, has there been a mention of homemedia releases?Tintor2 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comment. The series was not released on any platform to the best of my knowledge (probably due to the low demand). I have also answered the question about the episode summary in a previous section of the review. Unfortunately, I do not believe full episodes are accessible online, so I can only rely on the summaries given by reliable sources. I hope that answers both of your questions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you! I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

ALT text is OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I can remove the Bristow image if necessary. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise edit

Hi Aoba, how are you? I’m on the road right now and may or may not have time to give a full review, but I wanted to mention at least a few things that jumped out at me:

  • In the reception section from “Rocky Mountain News's Dusty Saunders” onwards, the sentence structure gets a little repetitive, with most sentences sticking pretty close to “So-and-so said this... so-and-so said this...” I recommend seeing if you can add more variety to the structure.
  • I have attempted to add more variety. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Adam Sandler of Variety praised the series' opening titles as similar to those for the crime drama Silk Stalkings“: There’s not enough context given to make it clear how this is praise. Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added more context. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed both of them. I am doing well, and I hope that you are having a good time on the road. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your edits above are good, thank you. Sorry for being late to get back to this, and again that I didn't have time to give a full review. My real-life busy periods come and go, so I'll be sure to look for an opportunity to review another of your articles in the not-too-distant future. Moisejp (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, and I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All sources seems to pass WP:Reliable source and everything is well-archived. It passes the source review.Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a status update edit

  • @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: Could I have a status update for this as I believe that it is ready for promotion? Thank you in advance, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2018 (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/Head_over_Heels_(U.S._TV_series)/archive1&oldid=860922056"