Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (American season 4)

< 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 User:Scorpion0422 22:28, 11 November 2008 [1].

The Office (US TV series) season 4

edit

previous FLC (03:15, 20 October 2008)

Is it ready? Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this strikes me more as an article than a list. Have you considered taking it to FAC? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the FA people would welcome such a huge table; anyways, the previous 3 seasons are FLs. Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The bolding in the lead is not necessary.
is it discouraged though? Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If what is bolded is not the exact repetition of the page title, yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok
  • "refused to cross the picket line." This is in the lead, be more clear.
now?
I was referring to defining what crossing the picket line means. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
now?
  • "The DVD set contains all 14 episodes, as well as commentaries from creators, writers, actors, and directors on some of the episodes, while also containing deleted scenes from all of the episodes, as well as bloopers and other promos." Split this sentence up.
  • "the two of whom are executive producers on both versions." "two of whom"-->both of whom. What are "both versions"?
  • "Season four featured fourteen episodes" Is there any way to fix this distracting alliteration?
  • "directed by eleven different directors."
  • "While The Office was mainly filmed on a studio set at Valley Center Studios..." "While"-->Although.
  • The last paragraph of the Production section does not flow well.
I bet it is an OR added by a random user - so I chopped it off. Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pop culture obsessed" hyphenate "pop-culture"
  • "The fourth season premiere "Fun Run" received a 5.1/12" Is this referring to the share?
  • "While the episode "Job Fair" received the lowest number of viewers for the season, at 7.2 million,[31] it and the episode following it, the season finale "Goodbye Toby" both" Comma after "Toby".

I will review the episode summaries later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the ones where I replied, all the comments should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now broken up from Karen" Who broke up with Karen?
  • "Jim and Pam announce they are dating" Insert that before "they".
  • "The race is won by Toby"-->Toby wins the race...
  • "As the new brainchild of Ryan, the new Dunder Mifflin Infinity website is about to be released, the staff of Dunder Mifflin Scranton prepare to host a party as part of a company-wide video chat room." Split this sentence up.
  • "Later, at the party, Dwight and Michael take a hostage in the form of a pizza delivery boy, although they later release him."-->Later, at the party, Dwight and Michael kidnap a pizza delivery boy, although they later release him.
  • "revealing that he only said he had leave to try to get a raise." Are you sure this is right?
  • "Michael and Dwight decide to surprise Ryan in New York for a night of clubbing and meet his friends." You can't surprise someone "for" a night of clubbing. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
updated all of these, how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Mitch32(UP)
  • Comments -
  1. Shouldn't "season" be capitalized in the title?
    I don't thinks so but I might be wrong. All the other season lists I've seen are uncapitalized. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it possible to get references in for each episode?
    That should not be necessary since (1) the plots don't require refs, and (2) all the episodes articles in this list are allready GAs, which means they are already adequately referenced, and those refs are found in their respective articles. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it possible to bold "fourth season" in the lead?
    One of the previous reviewers specifically asked to remove the bloding. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is Reference 5 a reliable source? I don't believe, personally that it is.
    Nice spotting there! I switched it with the official site. Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. De-bold the episode names in the chart - Bold blue links violate MOS and policy I think.
    I don't think this should be an issue since the table uses the same template as any other FL about seasons; this means that all the other similar FLs out there have the same issue. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will support when things are solved. Good luck.Mitch32(UP) 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support - good job.Mitch32(UP) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SatyrTN
  • This looks like a mashup of a list and an article. The paragraphs of text are longer than the actual list itself. Are the first three sections (Production, Cast, and Reception) specific to the season? I believe those sections are overwhelming the actual Episode List. Season 3 has half as much lede text as list, Season 2 and Season 1 seem to suffer the same as this one. I recognize that all three of those reached FL status, but IMO that's a shame :)
Let's see "The fourth season premiere "Fun Run" received a 5.1/12 share in the Nielsen Ratings among viewers aged 18 to 49..." Your are right it refers to a completely different subject. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two columns "Directors" and "Writer(s)" - please pick one format or the other.
That was typo. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notes" section is missing, denoting what "‡" and "†" mean.
This shows how much attention you actually paid while reading the article. Go check it again and maybe you will find it this time. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'll be a lone wolf here, but even though this is well written and comprehensive, and even though the list itself is in great shape, I can't support what seems to me to be more of an article than a list.
Do you seriously believe that anybody at the FAC will accept the table as a part of an FA?? Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am actually confused. I don't really understand the opinion of the above oppose. The user states that the list is more of an article, but how about these FL's: Lost (season 4), 30 Rock (season 2) and The O.C. (season 3)? They too have information other than the list. I am also working on a season list which is very similar to this one, and I would hate really dislike it if someone opposed it for having to much information. After all, isn't that a good thing? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude or harsh, it's just that I'm confused. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Cornucopia pointed out, this page matches the typical list format of the season pages. There is only one season article to my knowledge that is FA (Smallville (season 1)), and if you compare that page to this page you get a stark difference in format and information. This page, which includes something that I generally don't agree with or think is necesssary, takes things that could easily be presented in list format and puts them in sentences. In other words, when you read stuff like "Production", what you really find is a list of the people and studios involved in making the show (mainly that first paragraph). One thing I mentioned to Cornucopia on their talk page is the reusing of information from page to page. Why do we need to introduce the same series regulars with such detail on every Office related page? This is a daughter article of a larger parent article, and the parent article should be identifying characters. Anyone coming to season four's page is likely to know who the characters are. Unless the characters are new this season, the section is really unnecessary and seems to be used to bloat the page's size. Lastly, why are the episodes the last thing on the page? The page is about these episodes, so it would beg the idea that they should be first. I don't know why there was a restructing of season pages to have the episodes listed last, but it seems counterproductive to the concept of what the page is about (and that is the episodes of this season).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mostly agree with Bignole here, although I'm struggling to see what the thing is that he finds unnecessary. This is a list. The "prose" could easily be presented in list format, it just isn't. As for putting the actual list of episodes first, I haven't seen that in any FL, only in the Smallville FA. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I find to be unnecessary is the repetative issuing of information in each of the pages (and sometimes within the page itself). Do I need to know there were 11 different directors that worked this season (even listing them out), when all I have to do is scroll down and count for myself? It seems like we're treating the reader like an invalid that cannot discern particular information for themselves. Does the reader need a reminder of who the same series regulars have been for four seasons? Stating who is a series regular can be done in the lead. The detail about who they are is covered in multiple pages that act as a parent to this one. Why are we repeating information from the main article about where the show is filmed? So much information is being repeated over and over again on each page, it's unnecessary. Unless there is something special about this season, there is no need to repeat yourself. The first two paragraphs of "Production" are repititious to the primary article, and that is what I'm calling "unnecessary". The Writers' Strike stuff is good, and should be kept most definitely. It's the stuff before that that is needless. If someone is reading each of the season pages, why would they want read the same stuff over and over again each time they move on to the next page.
          • As for the format of the page. As I said, I don't know why editors started putting the episode table at the bottom, it makes no sense when the page is supposed to be about the episodes of this season. Once it started it seemed to become an epidemic because more editors wanted to get season articles created and to FL so they just followed suit with what the first one did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • One of the main issues with this would be an ever-divided opinion on what is "Comprehensive", as loosely defined by the FL criteria. Because of the many FLs that include wide sections of prose on cast and production, many would believe that removing these would prevent the article from being Comprehensive. I must say that I follow this opinion also. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is comprehensive for the season that you are trying to attain, not comprehensive for the entire show. Comprehensive means "covers all major aspects", but that isn't the same as "repeats the same information on 5 pages". It's fluff, that's what it is. Why people feel the need to add "fluff" to pages is beyond me. What is relevant and comprehensive to season four of this topic is the reception of the topic, what the topic is about, and if there were any changes during this season. Restating the same tired information over and over again has nothing to do with comprehensiveness of season four of this show. You're attributing generalized information about the show to this specific season, and you shouldn't be doing that. Articles should be comprehensive but succinct.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Unfortunately, I'm quite sure most do not treat the season pages as articles of a series. I feel that it's to the ease of the reader to keep each of the sections in, and then let the reader select what they wish to or don't wish to read. I understand completely what you mean, and I too feel that it can be a bit repetitive, but It's not as if the reader is "forced" to read any part. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: of all 4 of you guys commenting here, mind voting pro or against the present state of the list? Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion has not been decided. FLs, just like FAs, are discussions and not votes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but this is the 3rd nomination and while I believe all the comments have been solved, editors still stay away from voting...... Nergaal (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thought I disagree with the structure and the repetition, I recognize that this is an issue with all of these similar pages, that should not hinder any single upcoming page that is modeling them. It's well sourced and written.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:27, 10 November 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_list_candidates/The_Office_(American_season_4)&oldid=1142601395"