Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grey's Anatomy episodes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:13, 20 August 2012 [1].

List of Grey's Anatomy episodes

edit

List of Grey's Anatomy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs), Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had worked on this article occasionally for the past year or so, and finally developed it to FL quality recently. I am the third-most frequent contributor, and after a recent peer review, I believe this list is now ready. Jonathan, the co-nominator helped bring this article up to quality this past year. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comments

TBrandley 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address those ASAP; as a matter of disclosure, TBrandley was the peer reviewer. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the above issues are done; I hope you can support. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work on the list. It can for sure be represented as one Wikipedia's best lists. Great work again. TBrandley 05:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Any reason why the lead image does not have a thumb and description?
    • Done
  • No production codes available?
    • There is no WP:RS available for the codes. Sorry :( TBrandley 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it appropriate to have three external links which more or less cover the same thing? Consider WP:ELNO.
    • No, see List of Awake episodes, a recently promoted FL, and various others.. Thanks. Oh, and also, epguides should be kept as it contains production codes not seen in any other external links. TBrandley 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the issues that can be fixed; others are noted. Thanks for reviewing! TBrandley 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of the above issues TBrandley. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm happy to! TBrandley 05:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Would spell out EST on first use, readers not in the USA, may not be aware what it refers to, probably link it as well
    • Done
  • "On May 11, 2012, the series was renewed for a twenty-four episode ninth season, which is scheduled to premiere on September 27." could do with a ref
    • Since its below in the actual article, it is not needed.
  • Some references have Medianet American Broadcasting Company, while others have ABC Medianet, be consistent, all should be the same
    • Done. Though it may take time to show on the table on this list
      • It's done. I fixed it originally but some user accidentally reverted it. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 33, 36, 39 hyphen should be an en dash
    • Done
  • As far as I'm aware IMDB is not considered a reliable source, so probably best to replace those refs
    • As explained in a peer review, "the source is not verifying an extraordinary claim, but merely the existence of these specials. If you search the title of the specials, they pop up on IMDb, TV.com, YouTube, blogs, etc. So clearly, they are real. The task was picking which out of those was the most-reliable, so I thought IMDb was." I'll leave this up to the original nominator though.
      • I think it is reliable in this case; IMDb and TV.com both show the same information, so clearly it is true. Besides, titles and credits are written by the editorial staff—it's not user-submitted. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • title image could do with alt text
    • Done
  • I see another user mentioned but we really don't need four external links, should really be no more than two
    • I'll leave this to the original nominatior

NapHit (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the issues that I could fix. Thanks for reviewing! TBrandley 17:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of the above issues again TBrandley. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • series overview table does not MOS:DTT, need to add row and colscopes to ensure it does
    • Done
I still don't see any col or row scopes in that table. NapHit (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very unfamiliar with table styling. I hate to ask, but could you explain how to do it? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, I've done it anyway. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

  • About.com (ref 13) isn't a reliable source. Surely something better can be found to cover a Golden Globe Award?
  • What makes The Futon Critic (a general citation and refs 207 and 215) a reliable source?
    • I think it meets WP:RS. It is also used at House (TV series), a FA. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may think that, but do you have any firmer evidence? Just because it's been used in an FA doesn't automatically make it reliable; it might have been added after its FAC, or the FAC reviewers might not have noticed it. If there was proof that it was found reliable at an FAC, I'd be much happier. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take a look through archives. But just as a note, the source was there before, during, and after its promotion. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) I have many reasons. #1 that The New York Times cites references to The Futon Critic itself.[2], [3]. #2, as noted on the web page, it is just press releases from NBC, where is fairly obviously. #3, is that it runs a great staff, as noted on its web site, it has many deicated staff members. For more reasons on why so, so Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Simpsons guest stars/archive1 under TBrandley (my) comments which asks the same questions. Hope these points work. Cheers, TBrandley 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Ok, found something. A user asked about the reliability of the website here, and it was deemed reliable for basic production information, but not extraordinary claims. After it being deemed okay, the user used it at No Such Thing as Vampires, the source was accepted, and the article was promoted (the source was and is still there). Rolling Stone [mentioned the website as a page that networks often view as well. Per what I found, I believe this meets WP:RS, and can be included in the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Seeing the great Ealdgyth strike out The Futon Critic at an FAC is reassuring by itself. That, along with the other evidence presented, is enough to convince me to strike this out. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes IMDB (refs 210–214) reliable?
    • I'm having a real problem with this. Grey's Anatomy aired five specials in its early days. It did not receive much attention, which is why it isn't covered by renowned websites. I know IMDb isn't usually considered reliable, but the title and credits are not user-submitted, they are written by the editorial staff. Furthermore, the first special "Straight to the Heart" for example; IMDb, TV.com, and TV Rage (can't link because it's blacklisted) all show the same information, so clearly it aired and the information is factual. You can actually watch the special on YouTube, and confirm all is true. Three "skeptical" sources all display the same information, in addition to the actual special on YouTube. I understand that they are not considered "high-quality", but clearly they are real and I feel this article would have gaps and not be comprehensive if the specials were not mentioned. I picked IMDb out of the three sources, because I feel it is the most reliable out of the three. Let me know, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there's a fourth option you didn't consider: citing the episodes themselves. There's a cite episode template that can be used for this. I know secondary sources are preferred over primary, but if there are no real good sources to support the information, don't be afraid to use the episodes themselves in this case. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although ref 204 is to the Twitter account of the show's executive producer, I'd still feel better if something a little stronger was used. Twitter has its limits as a reliable source on Wikipedia, though to be fair I'm more concerned about the other sites I pointed out. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is she the executive producer, but she is the creator and showrunner. I haven't been able to find another source, but I will look. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been unable to find an alternate source for the claim of 24 episodes. However, since she is the showrunner, I think she would know how many episodes they are producing this season, more than some magazine. Regardless, if you do not feel the source is strong enough, I'll remove it along with the claim. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would feel better if the source was removed. The information can always be readded once it appears in a stronger source. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "lead-out" is not common term outside the US and pubs like Variety and Hollywood Reporter
  • "All episodes are an estimated forty-three minutes" why "estimated"? "Approximately" is more appropriate
  • "Since its premiere, Buena Vista Home Entertainment has distributed all seasons onto DVD" Isn't it ABC studios nowadays?
  • Is there a special reason for making a little coloured box next to each season in the Overview table?
  • Can you make all the columns in the episode tables the same width for each season? Each season's table's column lines are all over the place and there's no similarity to the previous or next seasons'. It makes scrolling or reading them a bit of a strain.
    • It is set on an auto-width. This is because some seasons' titles, writers, or directors are really long, and others are short. I thought it would look odd for one table to have all these huge gaps if I set them all equal. However, if you feel otherwise, I'll be happy to change it. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{episode list}} was updated a few months ago with new parameters. One of them is "viewers=" so you don't have to use up an auxiliary one. It won't affect the layout or display of the information, but an FL should use up-to-date fields of templates for when other editors reference it when making more potential FLs.

My internet is currently patchy at best, so please leave me a message on my talk page so I know you've replied here. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I made a couple of minor changes. Tables look nice and neat now, and I can't find anything else to pick at. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Why aren't similar columns the same width from section to section? It looks messy right now.
    • It is set on auto-width. This is so that seasons with short titles do not have big gaps. Would you still like it to be changed? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables could use captions per WP:ACCESS.
  • "series has aired eight seasons" reads odd to me, I would expect it be active, i.e. "The series has aired for eight seasons"...
  • You already abbreviated ABC so why have all that "American Broadcasting Corporation" in the refs?
    • Is it necessary to change? They are all consistent throughout the citation section. However, if you feel it is necessary, let me know. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What make JB Hi-Fi's online store a reliable source?
  • Date ranges in titles for some of those Amazon links need en-dashes, not unspaced hyphens.
    • I don't know which sources you are referring to. The only Amazon sources are DVD release dates, and those are all spaced en-dashes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2012 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Grey%27s_Anatomy_episodes/archive1&oldid=1138482394"