This article is about a 1999 WBsitcom which starred Park Overall as a host of a phone-inradio program. It was optioned as a potential mid-season replacement for the 1998–1999 television season, but was delayed for a year. The WB had already decided to cancel the series prior to its premiere and seemingly did little to no promotion for it. This show is so obscure that it did not have a Wikipedia article until 2018, and I would be surprised if anyone has heard of it before this nomination.
I worked on this article back in 2018, and I was inspired to expand it further for this FAC. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I will do my best to further improve the article and address all the suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While not an absolute requirement, I would recommend adding a photo of at least one cast member (and this doesn't include TV logos)
I agree. Ideally, I would love to use an image of Park Overall since she is the star of the show, but unfortunately, she does not already have an image in the Wikimedia Commons and I am honestly quite bad at tracking down free-use images. Jay Thomas, Jim Rash, and Majandra Delfino each have images, but neither are from the time period that this series was filmed so I do not want it to be misleading, and the Simon Rex image seems too low-quality for the article. Apologies for the lengthy response. I just wanted to be show my thought process behind this one. Aoba47 (talk)
Let's trim "has an estranged relationship with her husband" down to "is estranged from her husband"
Agreed. It is always better to more concise so I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does "secure a better career" mean one that makes more money, something Joplin enjoys more than her prior job, or both?
According to the Terrace source, it is more about Katie wanting to start over so it more the second reason, but I am sure money also played a factor in it although that is not directly said. I have reworded this part to hopefully make it clear that it is more about her starting over and trying to find a new direction in life. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how pertinent the "more fashionable" bit is (I've never watched the series and hadn't even heard of it before looking at this article)
I have added a bit more on this. Liz works as a fashion editor and her focus on fashion seems to one of the show's ways of distinguishing her from Katie. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"is a recurring character on the show"..... that sounds like a stretch when Katie Joplin only runs for 5 episodes total, and "recurring" makes it sound like one appears inconsistently in a show that has multiple seasons (or at least one with many more episodes). You should instead discuss Sara's characterization/plot elements.
That is a fair point. I have removed the "recurring character" bit altogether. Thank you for encouraging me to look further into the characterization/plot elements. I have added a bit about that. Let me know if any further work is needed for that part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"started production in 1998"..... is a specific day or even month known? If you can find anything on when filming concluded, then I definitely feel that should also be added
Unfortunately, I cannot find further information on the show's production. It is likely the entire thing was filmed in 1998 and then the WB decided to pass on it and only later aired as a burn-off or some kind of filler. However, that is pure speculation on my part. That being said, I will look around some more just to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"cited Katie Joplin in his book"..... listed would read better, and I would make it clearer that the "sitcoms you never saw" is part of the Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw title. Elaborating on any commentary Irvin left would be helpful here.
I have used your suggestion. When I first wrote the article, I was able to access the Katie Joplin part of the book through the Google Books preview, but unfortunately, my access to that particular book has been greatly limited. I have put in a request here as I agree that it is best for me to re-examine that source to see if I can find anything new. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a citation for "Overall learned the WB canceled Katie Joplin while promoting the sitcom Ladies Man; she said: 'I think that pretty rude. Honey, they didn't even call me to tell me they were canceling it!' According to Overall, the WB decided to cancel the series months before it aired as they did not believe it could attract a young demographic." Also, shouldn't "that pretty rude" be "that's pretty rude"?
Yikes! Apologies for that as I am not sure how that happened. You are correct. For some reason, I made a typo. I made a lot of silly mistakes in this part in particular >< lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a short-lived series that many are unaware of, you mostly seem to have covered all the essential aspects. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have address everything. I will let you know when I get further access to Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw. If you have any questions about my responses (or any further comments), I would be more than happy to respond to them. If you are interested, here is a clip from the show and you can watch the opening credits here. It seemed like a fairly standard, and rather unremarkable, sitcom for the time period. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and let me know once that Irvin bit gets expanded. You still haven't given the full title of his book within the prose, though. Perhaps I should've been more explicit in saying that should be included. I see what you mean with the photos. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: I have added the book title to the prose. I was able to get a hold of all the pages from the Irvin citation about the series and I have added that information. I am glad that I did as the book had information on the unaired episodes and at least gave the month that production ended as well as a vague reason on why that had occurred. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say this in the above message, but the only commentary Irvin had about the show was comparing it to Muprhy Brown. Otherwise, he just focused on the facts about the show's episodes and production. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, so I now support this nomination, and the media review passes as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to let you know that I added an image of Jay Thomas per a request from a below review. I wanted to update you since you did the media review and you had also requested an image be added to the article. I think it does look better with an image so I was likely over-thinking with my hesitancy about it before. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Those were some silly mistakes on my part. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, please let me know. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead feels a bit small even for its size. Maybe the unaired episodes' could be mentioned there.
I have expanded the lead to include further information. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the lead is an intro to the body, it could give a brief reason for why the response was negative.
Unfortunately, I do not think that is possible. From my experience, these kinds of reasons are only included in the lead if there was some sort of critic consensus, but while both of the retrospective reviews are negative, their reasons do not really overlap. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly happened to the last two unaired episodes? Were they released in VHS? I'm kinda confused. I mean there are brief summaries about what happens in the narrative.
The series was not released on VHS or in any other format to the best of my understanding. You can watch a clip from one of the unaired episodes here. It could be that journalists were given summaries of all the episodes to either review or run in the newspapers. While the WB had always planned on canceling this show, the network may have originally wanted all the episodes to air so the summaries could have been given out for TV listings, but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only these three confused me. I'll do a source review if you want another day.Tintor2 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: Thank you for your review. I have expanded the lead, and I have left responses for your second and third comments. A source review would be greatly appreciated if possible. I hope you have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting nomination. The only nitpick I might throw is that "Rob Owen believed the series would appeal to fans of Overall" Does he specify that the actor is quite popular within a certain demography? Kinda like how the character Takayuki Yagami you once read was given the facial expressions and Japanese voice of the celebrity Takuya Kimura to make his video game more popular within fans.Tintor2 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. That is a good question. The part about this from the source is the following, If you're a fan of actress Park Overall (Empty Nest) tune to the WB's summer sitcom Katie Joplin, and I have added a part about her association with the Empty Nest sitcom. Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though I can't access ref 4 (see below) I assume it needs a subscription marker like the other Los Angeles Daily News refs
I have replaced the citation with one from ProQuest and added the appropriate formatting. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieval dates are a bit inconsistent. If I understand it correctly—it seems like you're not having them for archived pages, which is fine, but there's some inconsistency otherwise, Newspapers.com for example has retrieval dates for some but not others.
Thank you for catching this. Apologies for my sloppy work. I have archived the web sources, but not the newspaper or ProQuest sources. I believe it should be consistent now, but please let me know if there is anything I have overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. It was used to cite that a recurring character, but since the show aired for only five episodes, it is a little silly to say someone is recurring when they never had the chance to do so in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
Given the subject matter, seems fine in general
Thank you for checking this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
Link for ref 4 is broken for me
Replaced with a different link. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm Irvin really needs page numbers, or a page range if that's more convenient. If there's no page numbers (which is my guess for why you don't have them already) add a chapter or section title if possible, with |loc= instead of |p=
Thank you for the suggestion. You are correct that it does not have page numbers (at least for the digital version and I have checked a few different places to confirm this). I have added the chapter title to better help readers who want to find this information in that source. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that's it for a fist pass—I'll take another look whenever you have a chance to respond Aza24 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Thank you for your review. Apologies for my very silly mistakes with the sourcing on this one. I hope you are having a great end to your week and an even better start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attentiveness. Looking great now—pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your review and I greatly appreciate that you added the access-dates for the ProQuest sources. I am not sure why I missed those. Apologies for that. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It is about Katie Joplin (Park Overall) who moves from Knoxville to Philadelphia" → I think something should describe who Katie Joplin is, like "It is about a single mother, Katie Joplin, ...". Right now it feels like the reader should already know who she is.
Good point. I have decided to just revise this paragraph as a whole to hopefully make this clearer, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I meant the lead not the section. Heartfox (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologies. I misread your comment so that was my mistake. I have revised this. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be written "The WB", not "the WB"; "The" is a part of its name.
"the series characterizes her through her fashion" → what does this mean?
The show (at least according to the sources I have found) presents Liz as a far more fashionable person than Katie. I have revised this part with a quote from the source. This was something from an earlier draft of the article before I found the source about her career as a fashion magazine editor so that may already cover this and if necessary, I can just remove this part altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
author-link=Marilyn Beck
Thank you! For some reason, I missed this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching this. I have marked the url as dead and I have used the press release template. I always forget about it so I will be better about using it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
link "1998–1999 television season" in the lead and body
I am uncertain about adding this because I do not specify location in any of the other citations so I am not sure if it would work if only citation has this. Plus, there is an article for the Statesman Journal, which specifies the location (i.e. Salem, Oregon). Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Thank you for your review. Apologies for all the silly mistakes that I had made in the article. You have helped to improve the article immensely and if there is anything else that can be improved, please let me know and I will get to it. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. Have a nice weekend, Heartfox (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on changing the second lead sentence to "Park Overall stars as the title character, a single mother who moves from Knoxville to Philadelphia and tries to balance her job as a radio program host with parenting her teenage son Greg (Jesse Head)." or something else, to avoid repeition of Katie Joplin.
Works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The part about "fashion-plate" uses a hypen but the article does not, is there a reason for the discrepency?
The source uses a hyphen and I have kept it since it is a quote. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see there are quite a few quotes in that section already, so I just boldy unquoted it, feel free to adjust. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per infobox documentation the run time should not include commercials but this appears to be case in this article since in text it says each episode lasts 30 minutes with commercials
Good point. Unfortunately, I cannot find a more exact time for the episodes so I have removed it from the infobox. The closest thing that I could find is that all seven episodes aired for 210 minutes. A typical American sitcom runs 22 minutes, but I am not sure if that would be original research to add without a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see understandable, if no reliable source exists I guess it is just easier to note this in prose.
I know there is probably limited coverage for such an obscure show but do reviewers break down the parts of the show, like writing, acting, direction, or was it all broadly seen as a "failure"
TheRadio World critique is focused on the premise, while the USA Today one just lists it as one of The WB's biggest failures without any real explanation, but that is probably due to how quickly the show was canceled and how little The WB promoted (or even seemed to care about) it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised this part to hopefully make it a little clearer. I added more context specifically for the USA Today article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to add images that were not taken from around the same time period as the show as I think it could be rather misleading. The Jim Rash and Jay Thomas ones were both taken over a decade after/before the show. The Jay Thomas one is at least from the 1990s, but I am uncertain about helpful it will be. Ideally, it would be great to have an image of Park Overall, but I am pretty bad at finding free-use images. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the hesitancy. Could not find any free images of other actors. I can understand the Hampton/Regalbuto images are probably not relevant enough considering they only directed one unaired episode each. Jim Rash's image closest to airing is 2011, so 12 years out. However, Jay Thomas's image File:Jay Thomas at 44th Primetime Emmy Awards cropped.jpg is only 7 years out (1992) compared to the airing of the show (1999) and is billed third. From looking at other media articles it does not seem unprecedented to use free images that are out by a number of years (For instance Groundhog Day (film) (1993) uses cast images from 2017 and 2018, Ghostbusters II (1989) uses cast/crew images from 2009, 2010, 2013, 2019). Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: Thank you for the response. I have added a Jay Thomas image to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources mention opening theme (if so could add to infobox)
Unfortunately, I could not find any sources about the opening theme. I did find this YouTube video of the opening credits, which has the theme song, but I cannot find any further information about it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see thank you for clarifying.
Seeley and Gunzenhauser should proabably listed as executive producers in the infobox as well.
They definitely should be added to the prose. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mentioning some of writers/directors in prose?
Unfortunately, there is not much I could add about them in the prose. The only information I have found is that they were involved with the show. The only writers that had further background on them were Norm Gunzenhauser and Tom Seeley since they created and produced the show. I tried doing another search to see maybe if I could find something on Steve Zuckerman since he did the pilot episode and directed the most episodes, but I could not find anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see no problem, thank you for clarifying.
That's is pretty well all I could think of, hope these comments help. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 12:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: Thank you for your review. It helps a lot. Your copy-edits to the article have helped to improve a great deal as well. I have addressed all your comments (either through revisions or responses). Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thank you for the speed response, I have replied above. The only outstanding query I have is regarding the images. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the help. I have addressed that point. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great thank you once again for the fast response. Support. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was wondering if I could get a status report on this FAC. It has received a good amount of support as well as source and image reviews. I am only asking as it was recently pushed down into the "Older nominations" list. Thank you and I hope everyone is staying safe and have a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The prose meets my expectations. There were only ref formatting issues, but I took care of it with ProveIt. --Kailash29792(talk) 06:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba! Just a few prose comments. Generally this looks really well-researched and well-written.
Brooks and Marsh wrote that the series portrays Katie through her "perception, Southern wit, and strong opinions": I'm not sure it's grammatical to say that someone is portrayed "through" her characteristics. Maybe "with", like "Brooks and Marsh wrote that the series portrays Katie with..."?
Good point. I have revised this part with "with". Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and they believed these qualities are why she is hired to host a phone-in radio program: This feels like it's worded from an in-universe perspective. The show calls for Katie to be a talk-show host, so she is one. Maybe reword to say that it worked for her character to be a radio host.
I have copy-edited this part, but please let me know if it requires further work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph under "Premise" focuses on Glen and Sara, but then the last sentences talk about Katie's storylines and Head's feelings about his character. Those should be moved.
I have copy-edited this part, but let me know if further revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Reception section I notice there's no commentary on why the show failed so badly. Is that information available? It seems like it would be pertinent. The closest we get is the Radio World review where he talks about how unrealistic the premise is, but even that doesn't really tell us why the show wasn't good from a general perspective.
I have provided some additional context. These articles do not go into further depth on why this particular show was not good since it is a minor part of their larger discussions. I have tried to add some context about that, like Mediaweek being about network's rising interest in summer programming, USA Today's review of The WB and UPN's first five years, and Radio World's questions on why radio-based television shows have not found greater success. Please let me know if further revision would be helpful. I was just worried that it would be too tangential if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise this is one of those cool niche articles that make Wikipedia so delightfully odd, and I'll be happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for the review. You have helped to improve the article. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. I love working on obscure topics like this one, but I do also understand the importance of working on broader and more well-known topics as well. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, it all looks good to me. I'm happy to support your hard work here :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
