Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Blue (TV series)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2018 [1].

Lady Blue (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American detective and action-adventure television series, with David Gerber as executive producer, which originally aired for one season on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network from September 15, 1985 to January 25, 1986. The series revolves around Chicago detective Katy Mahoney (Jamie Rose) and her violent methods of handling cases. The supporting cast includes Danny Aiello, Ron Dean, Diane Dorsey, Bruce A. Young, Nan Woods, and Ricardo Gutierrez. After the pilot aired, Lady Blue was criticized by several watchdog organizations (particularly the National Coalition on Television Violence), as the most violent show on television.

This FAC is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chetsford[edit]

I'm struggling to find much on which to comment. This, I think, is a testament to the quality of the article. In particular, Aoba47 has an impressive command of MOS:COMMAs. Further, they write in an engaging and stylistically fluid manner that allows the article to be easily digested. While the show itself seems a little schlocky, the treatment of its premise by Aoba47 is interesting enough that I fancy seeing an episode or two now out of curiosity. I support contingent on a few corrections or clarifications, which I've listed below.

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length should have a lead of one or two paragraphs and this has a lead of three paragraphs. While LEADLENGTH is not a fast rule, it seems a good one to follow except under extraordinary circumstances which don't seem to occur here.
  • Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am the worst at writing and revising leads, so I appreciate the link to the policy about it. I have edited it down to two paragraphs by removing some non-essential information. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images don't have ALT text.
  • To the best of my knowledge, all three images already have ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the section "Production" is very complex and difficult to read with the two conjunctions: "The executive producer of Lady Blue was television producer David Gerber; and directors Guy Magar and Gary Nelson also worked on the series, and Jack Priestley was the cinematographer.. I wonder if there's a way to simplify it?

Chetsford (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! (Sorry I missed the ALT tags.) Chetsford (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries; I greatly appreciate your comments and support. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Freikorp[edit]

  • I don't think it's necessary to call her both "Dirty Harriet" and the alternate spelling "Dirty Harriette" in the lead. For the lead, I'd say just "Dirty Harriet" will do.
  • "in her 2013 book" - I'd add the book's title, or say "a book" instead of "the book".
  • I'd mention that Eastwood gave her advise on how to fire guns in the lead, but up to you.
  • Should 'Violent Crimes Division' be linked to Violent crimes? I was expecting to link to an actual division. This issue won't stop me from supporting, just bringing it up.
  • "Reesman noted that the latter" - I'd change "noted" to "stated" as per WP:WORDS
  • "was less graphic than future television programs" - were examples of more violent shows given?
  • Unfortunately, she did not provide any concrete examples. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "author David Inman called Lady Blue "one of the dumbest shows ever on ABC" - this is interesting, it is possible to use the source to expand on why he thought it was so dumb?
  • This quote and source was added by a separate user (though I did correct the citation format to match the rest of the article). Unfortunately, I do not have access to the actual source. I see the book on Amazon and eBay, but I cannot find a way to access online. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great; will be happy to support after issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Freikorp: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you are having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant[edit]

  • The opening sentence is awfully long and unnecessarily complex. It could be better as: "Lady Blue is an American detective and action-adventure television series. Produces by David Gerber..."
  • It's not the most natural transition from the supporting cast to filming to critical commentary and back to the cast. Why not have three paragraphs and have production details in the second.
  • See the above commentary by another reviewer (Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length should have a lead of one or two paragraphs and this has a lead of three paragraphs.). Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical response to the series was primarily negative during its run, but feminist author Cary O'Dell questioned whether that stemmed from contemporary sexism in a 2013 book" - It reads as if contemporary sexism stemmed from the book and not the writer's view.
  • While I encourage the mention of writers and critics some of them are breaking the flow here and could be done away with as long as we have in-line citations for direct quotes. Case in point: 1. "John J. O'Connor of The New York Times" 2. "Jon Anderson of the Chicago Tribune" by removing attribution you'd be able to help with the flow.
  • I believe that the writer/author should be cited to emphasize that these are opinions and commentary from them and not from the publication as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through. VedantTalk 08:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • "Rose described McNichols as similar to a character in the crime drama The Sopranos." - this would be better after the "McNichols is portrayed as fond of chili dogs and appreciative of Mahoney's more unorthodox methods of handling criminals, although he still criticizes her reliance on violence." but as the their sentence follows the first more naturally.
  • "The executive producer of Lady Blue was television producer David Gerber." - do we need two "producer"s in the sentence?
  • "Produced by MGM Television and David Gerber Productions." - a comma.
  • "Rose recalled having a difficult time in Cabrini Green since the residents threatened the cast and crew and threw bottles at them during filming." - wow what? do we know why?
  • According to the source, "the people who lived there started getting restless and tired of us". I would imagine that people living in the projects would probably be mad at a film crew in their space, especially since they were facing some pretty severe issues with poverty and crime at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the actress, Lady Blue had the same concept as the" - you might want to reintroduce her.
  • the television film Get Christie Love! - maybe the release year.
  • Revised. It was a television series so that was my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, the actress" - "the actress" isn't very encyclopediac.

The rest looks neat. VedantTalk 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the update. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this for promotion. Your work on short-lived niche TV shows is inspiring Aoba47! VedantTalk 17:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • Not at all a must, but I'd consider mentioning Depp in the lead. An early appearance by someone of his stature gives a general audience a reason to care about the topic.
  • Good point! I have added it to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether O'Dell's area of expertise is more important than the fact he's a feminist. (Lead and reception section.)
  • I replaced it with television studies, as O'Dell seems to primarily wrote about television. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "how to mimic using a gun from the director" Is "the director" Eastwood, here? If so, specify earlier on that she worked with him as a director.
  • I just replaced it with "Eastwood" to avoid any ambiguity. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a silly point, but did Rose get advice from Eastwood at a shooting range, or get advice from him and then have a go independently? There's some ambiguity in the article.
  • It is a good point; from the newspaper article, it reads like she went independently so I have revised the parts to hopefully read more clearly. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John J. O'Connor" Who is he? A journalist? Critic? Film studies scholar?
  • O'Conor is a writer from The New York Times, and he is introduced in the "Premise and characters" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her former lover. Mahoney discovers that her ex-partner" Ambiguous; I'm assuming the former lover and ex-partner are the same person, but are they formerly involved with Mahoney or the mastermind?
  • That is a good point, but I am not sure how to avoid the ambiguity. I do not have access to the episode itself, and there are multiple male guest stars so I unfortunately cannot reference the character by name. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you don't have a date for the final episode?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find an exact date for this episode other than a generic "1986". Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "include a female private detective in Veronica Clare and Partners in Crime" would female private detectives not be better than a female private detective?
  • I wouldn't bother including publishers for journals/magazines, but, if you do, do so consistently!

This is a very well put-together article. I can't imagine that writing about relatively minor shows from the '80s is easy! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope that you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure the episode is called "Beats of Prey"? Googling is throwing up the title "Beasts of Prey", but not from the best sources! (That's apparently the one Depp was in.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a typo on my part so I have corrected it. Thank you for bringing it up as I have kept reading over it lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm clear: Have you taken a look through any newspaper archives (Nexis is the one I use, but there are others)? I don't know if there will be anything there, but I just want to make sure nothing crucial has been missed. I'm happy to help out if you don't have access to anything like that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I unfortunately do not have access to any newspaper archives to the best of my knowledge (I no longer have access through my undergraduate or graduate universities, and I am too cheap/poor to pay for access to them myself). I do not believe there is anything else that could really be added though. Thank you for the comment though as I had not considered it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't expect you to pay for your own access. I'm getting a manageable number of hits on Nexis. I'll post to the talk page of this FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all of the information. I greatly appreciate it! I will start reading through everything and integrating it into the article today and tomorrow. I apologize for the delay; I have been having some computer issues over the past week >< Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I have incorporated all of the relevant information into the article. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I think the Aoba has done a really good job of putting this article together. While it's on the shorter side, that is to be expected given the topic. All key questions are answering. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

  • The lead is kinda long for only two paragraphs. Maybe it would be better to split one.
  • The lead was originally three paragraphs during its GAN, but I was informed by a reviewer for this FAC that it needs to be two paragraphs according to Wikipedia's policy on the lead length in proportion to the size of the article as a while. If you feel that any information should be removed, then please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to reduce the amount of quotes and try using more object remarks? It's a critcism I often be told.
  • I feel that I have used quotes where it is necessary and in instances in which the critic's own words would be better than my own, but if you feel there are certain parts (i.e. sections and/or paragraphs) that are too bogged down with quotes, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the use of "()" is not often recommended.Tintor2 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "()" construction was introduced during the copy-edit that I requested from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I believe that it was added to make the sentences flow a more clearly. I have not personally heard or seen advice against the use of parenthesis before though. However, if you believe it is absolutely necessary, then I can go back in and revise and reorganize things to make it work without the parenthesis. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I see ALT text on all but the first image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. The first image already has ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review- spotchecks not done[edit]

  • What's your source for the non-plot details in the episodes table?
  • Information in episode tables are typically sourced through the episode itself. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot details, absolutely. However, IME air dates are not typically included in the episode itself, and writers only sometimes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Episode credits always (to the best of my knowledge) include the individual writer and director (it would not make any sense for them not to include the names of the primary creators). I could add sources though for the air date if absolutely necessary, but I never had to do that in my previous FACs for television show articles. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Print newspaper sources should include page number but do not need publisher.
  • I have removed the publisher. I do not have access to the sources for the page numbers. @J Milburn: could you please help me with this as you provided the sources? Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only some of the sources I provided had page numbers, sadly. This is a problem with Nexis; recent articles almost invariably have page numbers, older ones often don't. The Washington Post articles I posted have page numbers (H1 and B3) but the Globe and Mail ones don't. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I have added the page numbers where appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes NewNowNext a high-quality reliable source?
  • NewNowNext is a website for the channel Logo TV. Here is the link to the about page. I can remove the source if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the background of the author? What is the editorial policy of the site? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a page that suggest the site uses editors in some capacity. The list of editors for the site (i.e. the masthead) can be found here with this link. Here is a link to all of the articles that were written by the author cited in the article. Since the website has an editorial staff listed, I am assuming that everything (including material written by this person) must go through them in some capacity. Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know what you mean by "edition statements". Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification (and your help overall). I will get to this later tonight, and hopefully, it should be a quick and easy fix. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. For some reason, I thought that I would have more trouble with it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have answered your comments. Hope you have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks. I would prefer to see cites for the air dates, and I wonder whether Josh could provide permalinks for the newspaper refs without page numbers. I'm also not quite convinced about NewNowNext - you might consider posting it to RSN for other opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response; I greatly appreciate all of your help with this. I have posted a question about the NewNowNext source on the RSN, though I think the link to the "About Us" page showing that it has editorial oversight should clear it as acceptable (that is just in my opinion though, but it is always good to get other people's opinions). I will research and include citations for the air dates later this weekend if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the references for the airdates; it took less time to find appropriate sources than I thought. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the tags to the references as the content is not visible to me. Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that this has been updated. Apologies for the multiple pings over the past few days. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: Hello. Almost all of the concerns posed in the source review have been cleared, except for a question about the NewNowNext source. I have posted a message on the RSN as requested, but I have yet to receive a response and I believe that it may be buried under more recent posts. I was wondering if any of you could provide feedback on the source. I have found evidence that the source has editors, but I would also be perfectly fine with removing it if absolutely necessary. I believe that once the source review is cleared, this should be ready for promotion (as it has already received an image review and a fair amount fo commentary). I apologize for being a bother (and for the long message), and I hope that all of you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't comment as a coordinator, but if you're looking for a second opinion from a reviewer standpoint I'd be happy to recuse and offer one. Frankly there's not much about that site that screams "reliable" and seems to be a blog likely repeating things the author googled. I'd look for the actual source of information and cite that. If watchdog groups were critical of the show, find that information and use it to expand on that point, because it's more important than one phrase. The "featuring a drum machine" just strikes me as extraneous and can be removed. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain:@Nikkimaria: I have removed the source completely. There is already information on the watchdog groups in the article so I think that I am fine on that front. Thank you for the response! I think that this should be ready for promotion then. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a status update[edit]

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/Lady_Blue_(TV_series)/archive1&oldid=848285951"