Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soprano Home Movies

< 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 00:30, 10 March 2008.

Soprano Home Movies

edit
Check external links

Self-nomination
Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite The Sopranos epsiodes as a Featured Article Candidate because I think it qualifies. I modeled it after the Pilot (House) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost) articles. Although not as long and comprehensive as the latter, (because there simply is more information about Lost than The Sopranos) I think it covers all important aspects and follows Wikipedia:Television episodes closely. The article looked like this before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I know that the ratings part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that. –FunkyVoltron talk 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review closed after three days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So…? –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, , Opark 77 helped me with copy-editing, which was the main thing, and I also did the automated review and made some changes accordingly.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made some changes. In the lead, actors' names are given in parentheses, but this is not consistent with the rest of the article so something needs to be changed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed the production section so it's now consistent with the lead.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the supporting and objecting section close to the top of the main FAC page, it says, "Graphics are discouraged as they slow down the page load time." –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved content issues from Steve T • C 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on content:

  • The lead section makes mention that the episode is "the first episode of the second half of the show's sixth season, the thirteenth episode of the season overall." I know what this means (the season was split; the episode was the midseason premiere), but I don't think that someone unfamiliar with the show's broadcast history would necessarily understand this. Could use some minor expansion to explain the point.
  • The critical response section contains snippets of reviews in the style of "The Star Ledger gave the episode a positive review [...]" and "Entertainment Weekly was impressed with the midseason premiere [...]"—these should be reworded to name the writer; these aren't the opinions of the publications, but of their nominated reviewers (e.g. "Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly was impressed with the midseason premiere [...]"). The statement that the episode "was generally well-received by critics" could also be considered original research, as it is an editor's subjective summation of the critical response. It is perhaps unlikely that this will be challenged, but still see if it can be cited; maybe Metacritic has something.
    • Metacritic did not compile reviews for this episode; however, they did for "Members Only". –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh well, I wouldn't worry about it; it's only a minor point, and one which (if it came to be the only remaining issue) I wouldn't use to oppose this nomination. Steve T • C 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite IMDB, TV.com and Television Without Pity user ratings. These are uncontrolled user votes which are unreliable for this purpose due to votestacking and skewed demographics. See this article for a good examination of the latter.
  • I'd like to see something more on the episode's international reception if you have it, but it's not a deal-breaker.
  • No mention of years in the awards section. Ten years from now, an editor shouldn't have to follow the link to 59th Primetime Emmy Awards to find out when it received these honours. Also, does the fact that it was submitted by the makers for the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series and Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series Emmys, yet was passed over for actual nominations, even warrant mention? It feels like padding.
  • Some facts are cited in the lead which don't need to be (facts which are cited later on in the article don't require these additional citations). For example, the number of viewers the episode garnered. Check the others.

Just a quick drive-by review, but I hope this helps. All the best, Steve T • C 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to addressed these concerns. No international reception though...that's tough.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the lead stuff. It's addressed now. Yes, I think Emmy submissions are notable enough to be included in the awards sections. They're the Oscars of television, after all.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead still cites content which is cited later on in the article ("calm, contemplative storytelling"), but I've struck out those you've dealt with. I'm still unsure that the makers' submitting the episode for consideration in Emmy categories for which it ultimately failed to receive nominations is particularly notable (it's their own opinion on the episode's worth, rather than a third-party's), but there's no harm leaving it in I guess. All the best, Steve T • C 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed last citations in lead.–FunkyVoltron talk 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck more issues. Steve T • C 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on content:

  • Upon examination of the citations, there are a couple which are incorrectly used. An example is the one I already mentioned above, with regard to the IMDB, TV.com and Television Without Pity user ratings, which are used to cite the claim that the episode garnered a favourable fan response. Others include citing the episode itself (perfectly legitimate in some circumstances) to support the statement that the working title for the episode ("A Few Kind Words") refers to "something Tony says his father used to say was all he wanted for his birthday." This would be classed as synthesis; unless the makers or a reliable third-party said it, we can't.
  • The statement that the episode was "the first episode of the final pod of episodes to be produced [...]" is fine, but I'm unsure of the use of the word "pod". Is this an specific industry term? Is there a better word which can be used which is known to more people ("batch" maybe)?

All the best, Steve T • C 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the stuff about fan reaction; after all that's not necessary. Replaced "pod" with "batch," which was what it initially said anyway. Someone changed it to "pod" and I just assumed that's some industry term meaning the same thing. It's impossible to find any reliable sources for the working title, however. The real title was revealed through the schedule on the HBO website, which is not archived.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out. Steve T • C 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, removed the stuff about the working title reference. It now only says "The working title for the episode was "A Few Kind Words." The episode was listed under this title..."–FunkyVoltron talk 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed criterion three concerns ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three fair use images are being used. WP:NFCC#3A states “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole” and NFCC#8 states “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic”. How do two images of the back of Tony by a lake significantly contribute to our understanding of topic and/or plot? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's actually Tony in the one picture and Bobby in the other. I think both pictures enhance the article because they provide visual commentary of the article and illustrates crucial, memorable scenes of the episode. I think both are somewhat iconic, at least to the episode. "Soprano Home Movies" is the only episode set by a lake and, as such, both help identify the episode. Of course, they could be removed, no biggie. But people who have seen the episode...will remember those scenes. –FunkyVoltron talk 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ll buy that an “iconic” scene has merit (having not seen the show, I’ll take your word for it). My concern, then, is that they’re visually quite similar; I’m not convinced that the two together contribute significantly more than one alone would. If we can meet half way and just remove whichever you consider to be the less memorable of the two, my concern will be resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the picture of Tony sitting by the lake, kept the Bobby pic (which is also the last shot of the episode and very memorable).–FunkyVoltron talk 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved copyedit issues from Maralia Maralia (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I fixed a few typos. There are some remaining copyedit issues:

  • "a number of awards nominations" - award nominations
  • The actors' names in parentheses in the lead really make for impossible reading.
  • "In a flashback to 2004, a neighborhood teenage boy witnesses Johnny Sack's arrest and Tony's dropping of his gun in the snow as he fled the scene. The same teenage boy later picks up and fires the gun." - fled->flees, since this is all present tense
  • "The two then fish on the lake in a boat." - this sentence stands out as much weaker prose than the rest.
  • "Tensions are amplified when, over Tony's objections, Janice relates a childhood story of their father and mother; and reach a crescendo with Tony's hurtful remarks about Janice's looks and past promiscuous behavior." - the two halves of this sentence aren't joined very well; perhaps Over Tony's objections...;tensions reach a crescendo when
  • "and attempts to drive off drunk in his SUV but reverses into a tree" - he's not attempting to drive off drunk, per se
  • "and Bobby sets off for Montreal to do the murder." - prose; 'do the murder' is weak.
  • "was the first episode of the final pod of episodes to be produced" - pod of episodes?
  • "and the lowest ratings for a The Sopranos premiere episode" - please, can we not just say 'for a Sopranos premiere episode'?
  • What I was getting at here was this: 'a The Sopranos' is awkward and not necessary. Likewise with "It was the submitted The Sopranos episode".
  • I agree. I think merely saying Sopranos would be acceptable shorthand. Steve T • C 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't FBI in "has been picked up by the FBI" be better linked to FBI on The Sopranos?
  • There are also a load of redundant interwiki links. Examples: David Chase is linked 5 times; New York is linked 4 times; the main characters' names are linked in the lead, in the following section, and in the section after that. Maralia (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to address these concerns, tell me if it's not enough. English is not my first language so brilliant prose...is not something I'm liable to write. Removed redundant links. Kept those that are in different sections, though, since that's not against any rules as far as I know.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the last paragraph of the lead, trying for better prose. I crossed out done stuff above, elaborated on one issue, and added another. I still have a bone to pick with the redundant interwiki links. There is a value to repeating some links occasionally, but not on every occurrence just because there's a section break after the previous link. Common sense applies. David Chase is linked in the infobox, three times within the article text, once in the references, and once in the navigational footer. Matthew Weiner is linked almost as much, except he's not in the footer. The Sopranos is linked in the lead, twice in the nav footer, and 3 times in the text. There is no value in linking United States multiple times, nor DVD. Maralia (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote your rewrite a little. The focal point of the episode is not actually Tony's birthday, it's the weekend spent at the vacation home. Shortened instances of The Sopranos to Sopranos. Removed every interwiki link in the world! Changed FBI to FBI on The Sopranos. Everything should be OK now, unless you're not pleased with my rewrite of the last paragraph of the lead. See anything else?–FunkyVoltron talk 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Your rewrite of my rewrite was good, except for the awkward phrase "details a weekend series protagonist Tony Soprano" (just too many nouns) and a subject/verb agreement problem. I've fixed both, although the former is admittedly a really kludgy fix. I'm satisfied on the linking issues now. Maralia (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised someone hasn't pointed out that Vincent Curatola as Johnny Sack DOES actually appear in this episode. In the flashback. Heh! Can't believe no one caught this since it's an obvious contradiction in the article. Well, I fixed it now. I also added the name of actors in parentheses who are not listed in the lead to the plot summary.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First caption is just a nominal group—fine; but the second caption is a sentence, so needs a final period.
  • Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle praised the episode, writing "the series remains as vital and interesting as ever [...] There may be no better (or realistic) way to go forward into this Sopranos swan song."[12]—In the original, is "ever" followed by a period, or other punctuation? Looks as though it should have. The ellipsis dots need to reflect this. See MOS. Final period after the closing quotes (see MOS and fix throughout for quotes that start within WP sentences).
  • Why the bold in Ref 2? Tony (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. In Tim Goodman's article, "ever" is not followed by a period or other punctuation. The bold ref is because it's the episode in question.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looking good, even though I'm not a Sopranos fan ;) Just a few things:
    • Do we really need all that linking in the plot summary? I'm pretty sure people intellectual enough to find their way onto a webpage about a Sopranos episode (let alone be interested in reading it) would know what murder, karaoke, a DVD and a firearm were.
    • "This was an idea of executive producer/co-writer Matthew Weiner, whose sister actually used to tape-record him as a child" - any use for that 'actually' in there?
    • "In preparation for shooting the episode, series creator David Chase held several rehearsals" - I'd personally label him executive producer, not series creator, in this context; that seems to be more relevant.
    • "The scenes in Montreal were actually filmed in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn" - how about 'the scenes set in Montreal...' just for clarification?
    • As above for "Filming of the scenes in New Jersey and the Soprano residence took place..."
    • Maybe cut short the only Ratings sentence at "same number of viewers" - the episode name begins the sentence and isn't really necessary to repeat.
    • Any reason why the writers are listed as "Diane Frolov & Andrew Schneider and David Chase & Matthew Weiner" in the infobox - that is, separated by &s and ands?
  • Otherwise, a pat on the back, well done! •97198 talk 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed concerns. Kept most links in plot summary; I think it's OK. Settled on "series creator/executive producer" for Chase. Writers listed like that because they're two writing teams who collaborated on the episode. Left the ratings section unchanged unless you absolutely feel like it's necessary to change it.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A nice, well-referenced article. I'd be tempted to combine the short 'Ratings' section with 'Critical response'. The JPStalk to me 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept ratings section. See above.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That source is reliable because it's a notable screenwriting blog featuring podcasts with many screenwriters, in this case episode co-writer Matthew Weiner. There really is no other way of obtaining that information online because no one cares about the writers....just the damn actors and their private lives. See? If that's not enough...I'll remove it and shorten the production section as a result. The other one...I really don't know. I just used episode lists I found that still listed the episode under the working title. It's pretty hard, not to say impossible, to find truly reliable sources here so bear with me. As for the punctuation...sigh, I'll try to get down to it. See anything in particular, like a section, that's in special need of attention?–FunkyVoltron talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this one, which also appears to be a blog: 'Sopranos Final Titles and Dates'. Steve T • C 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some thing as above.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funky, I pointed you to a blog that says it's written by someone named Jeff Goldsmith; you replied that it's reliable because it discusses co-writer Matthew Weiner. What makes Jeff Goldsmith's blog reliable? Please focus on WP:SPS and specifically explain the use of these sources, including links and info that substantiate the reliability. I can't see how a commerical cheap TV site can be reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I explained to you that the blog contains actual interviews with screenwriters. If they're not reliable just because they're on blogs...I really am at a loss. If you look at the article, most of the reviews are blogs too, the only difference is that they're blogs on magazine and newspaper websites. I don't see the logic. In fact, I would say that creative screenwriting is more reliable than any interview or article with the writers because it's an unedited interview with a writer. That other site simply is not reliable but it's the only thing I could find. I guess no one has to know about the episode's working title.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not being clear enough :-) On Joe Blow's blog, with no idea who Joe Blow is or whether he's a complete fraud, how do I know the interview is real? On a magazine or newspaper site, I have their reputation behind the blog interview. If I don't know who Joe Blow is, why should I trust him to represent the interview correctly? What makes him credible, what is his journalistic reliability, what is his fact-checking factor ? Who *is* he, anyway? We don't use self-published sources unless they are from experts published in the field: see WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't explain it any better than that. So there, I removed all that stuff. Anything else?–FunkyVoltron talk 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no need to go that far. All you really have to do is present evidendce that Creative Screenwriting Magazine, and therefore the blog of its senior editor (Mr Goldsmith), is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. It shouldn't be too difficult; the magazine itself has received coverage in other notable publications, so looking through those links might be a good start. Steve T • C 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhgettaboutit! It's not worth it. It's just a largely irrelevant piece of trivia anyway. Because the production section was spreading so thin, I added some other stuff that's referenced.–FunkyVoltron talk 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Steve :-) Eighteen Eagle Scout points coming your way for demonstrating an understanding of WP:SPS and providing a clue to the needed info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (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/Soprano_Home_Movies&oldid=1138471828"