Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:17, 28 February 2009 [1].

Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Ink Runner (talk)

Unfortunately, for the last few decades, Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. has lived under the shadow of its not-very-funny parent show. Sure, it enjoyed some popularity in its heyday, but in later years, The Andy Griffith Show has all but eclipsed it. TAGS got at least three books dedicated to it, cookbooks, a TV movie, comic books, board games, canned foods, etc. Gomer Pyle got...trading cards and a lunch box. :( The article has been PR'ed, and thankfully, no Japanese or Chinese sources to translate here. :P Ink Runner (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now I want to go watch this show - I've never seen it before. I only found one issue that needs to be fixed:

  • Quotation should be sourced at the end of the sentence, even if this means that citations are duplicated in subsequent sentences. (see History and Premise sections)

Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.[fn 1] is an American situation comedy created by Aaron Ruben, originally aired on CBS from September 25, 1964 to May 2, 1969. " Missing a word here. Maybe "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.[fn 1] is an American situation comedy created by Aaron Ruben that originally aired on CBS from September 25, 1964 to May 2, 1969. "
    • Is the "that" really needed? "Aired" is a participle in this case, so I don't think another word is necessary. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show ran for five seasons and a total of 150 episodes." Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same; either all numerals or all words.
  • "Set in California (originally in North Carolina), it stars" What do you mean by "originally in North Carolina"? "it"-->the show.
    • "Originally in North Carolina": it was originally set in North Carolina. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a mention of production info in the lead.
  • "compounded with" Not sure, but should it be "compounded by"?
    • Well, I've seen both. I think "compounded with" denotes that the phrase is an "accessory" (don't know how to explain this properly), while "compounded by" is used to indicate that the subject is added to by the object of the preposition of "compounded by". Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show was produced by creator Aaron Ruben, Andy Griffith Show producer Sheldon Leonard, and Ronald Jacobs and was co-produced by Bruce Bayley Johnson and E. Duke Vincent." Much too many "and" connectors here. Maybe use a semicolon: "The show was produced by creator Aaron Ruben, Andy Griffith Show producer Sheldon Leonard, and Ronald Jacobs; it was co-produced by Bruce Bayley Johnson and E. Duke Vincent."
  • "who also composed the themes for shows-->composer for show themes such as
    • I thought about that, but if I changed it thus, then the the examples that follow would have to be the names of the themes, or it would have to read "composer for show themes such as those of..." and if streamlining were the intended effect, I don't think there would be much change in the word count. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "image of the branch"-->branch's image
  • "Nabors and Sutton were the only actors who were credited in every episode.
  • "annoyed over his mistakes." I think it should be "annoyed by", but this might be stylistic.
    • I've seen both used, and I used "annoyed over" because "annoyed by" was already used earlier and I wanted some variety. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes 3 and 5 need references.
    • Well the episodes themselves are the refs for note5, and the opening and ending credits of every episode of the show are the refs for note 3; I don't think I need to actually write them out since I think it should be obvious that the show itself is one of the refs. Ink Runner (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TVShowsOnDVD.com refs are mixed up; the website (TVShowsOnDVD.com) should not be italicized, but TV Guide should.

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments problems with references:
  • Everything in the bibliography should be sorted by alphabetical order. If two books appear by the same author, oldest first. If one book by an author and one another book by with author as primary author plus one or more coauthors, lone author first. I fixed them for you! Please don't forget to do this again.
  • This is wrong. It should be listed as a book in the bibliography, not a link in the notes:
  • This is wrong too. It needs to be formatted as an albun (though I don't know how to do that; there's probably a template):
  • Is "Jackson, p.334" the same as "Jackson, Kenneth T.; Markoe, Karen; Markoe, Arnie (1998)"? If so, please list secondary authors in cite.
  • Is "Beck, p.86" the same as "Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000)"? If so, please include secondary authors in cite. Please continue to check for this.
  • Is "Leonard, p.133" the same as "Leonard, Sheldon; Griffith, Andy (1995)"? If so, please fix cite.
  • Ditto for "Moore" cites to "Moore, Barbara; Bensman, Marvin R.; Van Dyke, Jim".
  • Ditto for "walter" cites to "Walter, Davis; Davis, Walter T. Jr.; Blythe, Teresa; Breibelbis, Gary; Scalese, Mark; Winslea, Elizabeth"
    • Okay, the refs should be okay now. (Or not, it seems that there's always some MoS rule I've overlooked.) Ink Runner (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops no, you missed two instances of Moore.
  • Your "Further reading" also was not in alphabetical order! I'll fix it for you. Please remember this.
  • Some books (right now I see two) in references that are not in Notes. I am moving them to "Further Reading" for you.
  • More:
  • I don't understand the value of the "Media" section. The first bits, about pilots an premieres etc., don't even seem to belong in this section. The latter bits (the book and album) do seem to belong there. However, if you take out the pilots and premieres, you're left with two sentences. That doesn't seem to warrant its own section... oh wait, DVD Releases is a subsection of Media. I think the entire section should be called Media (no DVD subsection) and the pilots and premieres removed...
    • Removed the sentences on the pilot/airdates etc. Ink Runner (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The walter et al book is listed as "Watching What We Watch" but the actual title is "Watching What We Watch: Prime-time Television Through the Lens of Faith". Wrong book title. The black marks are kinda piling up here. When I see this many errors, I start to lean Oppose on principle: out of fear that there are many more.
    • Used the full title. Sorry for the omission, but from the cover layout, I thought the subtitle was a description. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm at it, the authors are totally hosed: Davis listed twice, who is Scalese (Scales?) who is Winslea (Winans?). Do you have this book? Please triple check the date of publication and all of the authors' names.
    • Urrgh, I was typing in a rush at midnight and I just copied the names from Google Books without checking. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single place of publication on any of the publishers. I dunno this is required by MOS but it is by APA...
  • You really need to work harder on getting these cites right. The Hirschman quote appears on two pages: 73 and 75. You cite only the latter. This is an important omission because the text from 73 is a direct quote (left uncited). I... good-enough fixed it for you. I could be even pickier, but I'll let it go as long as both pages get mentioned somehow. Please check your direct quotations!
  • Why is Hal Leonard listed as the publisher of "And the Show Goes On: Broadway and Hollywood Adventures"? Should it be "Limelight Editions"? Should the year be 2004 instead of 1995? Do you have this book? please triple-check all info!
    • My copy lists Hal Leonard as the publisher and 1995 as the publication year... Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the publisher of The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge: A Desk Reference for the Curious Mind as Macmillan Publishers; I see St. Martin's Press instead. Did one purchase the other, or something?
    • Macmillan founded St. Martin's Press in 1952. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CRC Press published "The Encyclopedia of Television"? Are you sure?
  • I've checked enough publishers! Please double-check each and every one. In fact, please double-check every single detail of your References and Further reading. Just go straight down the list. It's quite boring, but that's no excuse. ;-)
  • Added a {{fact}} tag to the footnote about carter not appearing in some shows.
  • "he was "promoted" to lance corporal in 2001 and again to corporal in 2007". Which of these, if any, were in-universe? The promotion in 2007 was by the actual US Marine Corps: "The Marines said the character of Gomer Pyle represented qualities the corp respects: honesty, loyalty and devotion to duty." At the very least it should be mentioned that the latter promotion was done by the marines.
  • Oppose as per WP:NOTNOW. I was thinking about this last night, and I just wouldn't feel comfortable without a couple weeks spent going over detail of the references, the quotes, the cites, etc (see above). Last post. Good luck. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked all the details of the print references, and they should all be fine now. If the publishers are different than the editions you have, the copies I use list the parent company instead of the subsidiary (like CRC Press instead of Taylor & Francis, Macmillan instead of St. Martin's, etc.) and I couldn't find anything in the MoS on which to list. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: Ling.Nut has left indefinitely and will most probably not revisit this FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (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/Gomer_Pyle,_U.S.M.C./archive1&oldid=284352734"