Wikipedia:Peer review/One of the Boys (1989 TV series)/archive1

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to nominate it for FA in the future and welcome any comments to make that process smoother. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Addressed comments

The One of the Boys (1982 TV series) article has a hatnote to direct readers who may be looking for a different show with this name, and I think something similar would be helpful. Even the primary topic One of the Boys includes a hatnote. Added. This sentence, The television series stars Latin American actress and singer María Conchita Alonso as Maria Conchita Navarro, a Venezuelan immigrant living in the United States who gets hired to work in the office of a construction company and quickly marries its widowed owner., seems too long and I think it can be condensed. For instance, I would say "series" instead of "television series" and I do not think the descriptive phrase for María Conchita Alonso is necessary. Amended. I have a few comments for this sentence: The mid-season replacement had inconsistent Nielsen ratings and was not renewed for a second season. I would introduce that this show was a mid-season replacement earlier in the lead as this is not the best spot to introduce this. I would also be more direct by saying the show was cancelled as I think "was not renewed for a second season" is unnecessarily wordy. Partially done (I will attempt to make "not renewed..." make sense by adding more context to the associated section's prose later). I do not think the lead touches on the information present in the "Production" section, specifically from the first paragraph. I think it may be helpful to add some information from there to the lead. I would split this sentence, Six episodes were filmed at Sunset Gower Studios in Hollywood, which critics thought were hindered by a mediocre concept and script but enhanced by Alonso., in two as I think the information would be better represented separately. Split. The Venezuelan immigrant in the lead and the article seems misleading to me as it leads to the generic Immigration to the United States article and is not specifically about Venezuelan immigrants. I would actually recommend removing the link as the concept of immigration is likely obvious to most readers. Removed. This is more of a clarification question, but do you think Billy Morrissette should be red-linked? From my understanding, a red link shows potential for a separate article. Do you think he is notable enough to one day have his own article? If not, then I would remove it. Removed. For this part, quickly becomes a courtship, the word "courtship" seems unnecessarily formal for this context. I would think something along the lines of quickly quickly becomes romantic would be more appropriate. Amended. While I understand the purpose of the second paragraph of the "Premise and characters" section, the prose and overall approach needs more work. It currently reads more like a string of rather generic descriptions and I do not think it is particularly helpful. would recommend requesting a copy-edit at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors as I do not think the prose is up to FA standard at the moment. I hope this does not come across as too harsh, but further copy-editing would benefit the article. I removed the paragraph as analysis of the characters seems too limited to be beneficial. This part, in the Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles, seems unnecessarily wordy, especially since I would believe a majority of readers would know about Hollywood already. Removed. I would remove the following two sentences (Reporting for The Philadelphia Inquirer, David Walstad observed frequent flirtation between Alonso and her co-stars on set and Clohessy remarked he had fun during tapings and "often had a hard time keeping a straight face on camera".). The first reads too much like gossip and the second is so generic that it could be attribute to any sitcom actor so I do not think either really helps the reader understand more about the show. Removed. I noticed that the episode table does not have any summaries. Is this because the show is not available for viewing and episode summaries are not available? I would not have any issues with this if that is the case, but I just wanted to make sure. The first episode is available on YouTube, and the third is on Vimeo but dubbed in Spanish so I don't know what's going on. I am unsure if it is appropriate to only include one summary. The episode titles are pretty self-explanatory hopefully? It's not like some mystery/crime show where lack of plot summary would be detrimental I don't think. That makes sense to me. I agree that it would look weird to only have a single episode summary and readers can understand the basic plot of the show from other parts of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Is there any further information the "production delays"? I will review the refs again. Was there an official reason given for the time slot change? I doubt the network would provide a formal explanation, but I still wanted to ask because I agree with the article that having a lead-in with The Golden Girls seems like a way better strategy to promote a new sitcom The debut behind The Golden Girls was just a special timeslot to attract viewers so they would stick around for the whole series, but I guess they had more important shows that had already been airing since the fall season, so it didn't air behind it the whole time. The purpose of the move to 8:30 wasn't reported in any sources, but it looks like it was to improve ratings. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC) I think the "Critical reception" section could use further work, and I would recommend that you refer to the WP:RECEPTION essay as it has some very valuable advice. I think it would better to first focus on the praise for Alonso and then go into the criticism about the script rather than trying to do them together. I will take a look at the refs again. I am sure you are already aware of this, but you can actually watch a full episode of the show here. I actually found it to be quite charming. It is nothing exemplary or revolutionary, but it seemed cute enough to me that I could have seen myself watching it. Yeah I did earlier and didn't really like it or find it funny lol. I can understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC) You have done a good job with the article. I have always happy to see an editor work on an obscure television show. I enjoyed reading this article and learning about this show. It looks like you have successfully mined all of the sources out there about this show. I think the biggest potential obstacle for a FAC is the prose. It is rather rough in certain spots so I would recommend the WP:GOCE copy-edit (which I have listed above) and reading through it again more thoroughly. Hopefully, other editors will participate in this peer review. I hope these comments are helpful and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC) I agree with most of your improvement suggestions and responded to stuff I could do quickly above. I will review the refs/comments above again next week and respond more then. Thanks so much, have a great weekend too :) Heartfox (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC) I am glad that I can help and best of luck with the peer review and future FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just collapsing the addressed comments to avoid having too much on the page as I would not want to deter any potential reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I know you collapsed the messages above, but I believe I have addressed all of them now. I have redone the critical reception section and it seems short but unfortunately that's all there is. Please let me know if you have any further comments. I was wondering if I should paraphrase newspaper summaries/previews of the episodes, add add like 1-2 sentences as a plot summary. I don't know if that's been done anywhere else or proper but maybe it would be helpful to provide at least a little info? I will leave some comments at your PR soon. Heartfox (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for collapsing the comment prematurely. I had mistakenly thought that you had already addressed all of my comments. I think the "Critical reception" section looks better as more structure enables the readers to better understand how the show was received by critics. I would not worry about the length. As long as you did your best to try and find coverage, then you should be fine. That is one of the challenges with working on obscure topics.
• I would not have any issues with you paraphrasing episodes summaries, especially since these episodes are not readily available. I have done a similar thing in the past when I wrote about obscure television shows. The only time that I think this would be an issue is if the series can easily watched, which would allow for better episode summaries. However, since that is not the case here, I would go with paraphrasing.
• I have a random and quick question. What inspired you to create an article about this show and work on to potentially get it to the FA level? Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I added episodic summaries; hopefully they're okay. I was adding ratings/viewership to every show from the 1988–89 United States network television schedule and noticed One of the Boys didn't have an article, so I made one. I find research and writing fun so I decided to work on it :) Heartfox (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that they should be fine, but hopefully, other editors comment on this peer review and provide their own perspectives about it. I agree that research and writing are fun and I have definitely been in similar situations where I made an article after noticing one did not exist before (actually my work on Katie Joplin was quite similar). Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)