Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night Out/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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:24, 21 July 2008 [1].

Night Out[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr.crabby (talk) and Mastrchf91 (talk)

As part of WikiProject The Office, we've been working on the article Night Out, it is currently a good article and we feel that it is ready for FA status. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I'm mainly discussing prose issues here, and its a pretty long list. I'd recommend getting someone who hasn't worked on the article to give it a thorough copy edit. The following is a partial list of prose issues in the article:

  • Opening paragraph: "Written by Mindy Kaling, who also acts in the show as customer service representative Kelly Kapoor... the episode first aired in the United States... on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)". This seems like the wrong sentence order - the sentence appears to be leading up to the final clause, but is the channel it was broadcast on really the most important information? Its also a long and complex sentence. I'd recommend splitting into at least two, one covering the writer and director, the second covering broadcasting information. These are really two separate concepts.
Split the sentences. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" was viewed by over 7.5 million people" - that's not technically true. It had a measured audience of over 7.5 million people bu we can't actually say they all viewed it. I know this sounds pedantic, but an FA should strive for this level of accuracy.
Stated that it was an estimated measurement of the audience. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" was viewed by over 7.5 million people,[2] bringing in the lowest number of viewers that The Office had seen in 12 episodes". The juxtaposition of "over 7.5 million" and "the lowest number of viewers" is jarring. Can it be reworded to flow better? Saying "The Office had seen" is again incorrect - viewers watch TV shows, not vice versa.
Clarified that it was a measured audience. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" received both positive and negative reviews among critics." - received reviews from critics, not among critics.
Changed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: I'm not sure that a condensed plot summary work well as the second paragraph of the lede, but others may be able to give you clearer advice on this.
The condensed plot summary is used more as a lengthened teaser, which is the style of Greatest Hits (Lost) and other featured articles. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, like I said, this is something that others may wish to give their opinions about. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: "...and everyone quickly places blame on Jim" either "...places the blame on Jim" or "...blames Jim"
Changed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section: this is written as an "in world" plot description. Per the manual of style it should be written from a real world perspective.
Unclear on what should be done about this. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be rewritten to be from a real-world perspective. The reader should be aware that the events described are fictional, not real. There are examples of how to do this in the Manual of Style page I linked to. For example, you could start the plot section: "In this episode, ...". It doesn't need to be overdone, but is generally better style. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I'll get right on that. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, first paragraph: "A surprisingly friendly Ryan Howard" - why is he "surprisingly" friendly? This should be explained, for readers not familiar with previous episodes.
Clarified the difference between his present manner and that of previous episodes. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, first paragraph: "The previous version was shut down..." its not absolutely clear that you mean the previous version of the website. It would be helpful to include the wikilinked name of the previous episode referred to here so readers can find out more.
Clarified. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, first paragraph: "...due to an invasion by sexual predators of the social networking component..." - this implies that they were predators having sex with the social network. I think this would be clearer as: "...because sexual predators invaded the social networking component..."
Reworded. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, second paragraph: "Upon their arrival at a club..." is it possible to be more accurate than "a club". It seems like they pick a random nightclub and Ryan just happens to be there. I'm not sure if this is the way the episode works or if the writing could be clearer here.
Clarified it. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, second paragraph: "...a women's basketball team, also waiting in line" better as: "a women's basketball team, who are also waiting in line"
Reworded. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, second paragraph: "...advises them not to take Ryan to a hospital, the trio run off with." - there is something missing from the end of this sentence
I had fixed this before, somehow it was re-added. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, second paragraph: "...gives him hypothetical advice..." I think the advice is real, not hypothetical?
No, it was hypothetical. It's a part of the humor that Michael misconstrues Ryan's question. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, third paragraph: "...the rest of the office is forced to work on a Saturday to record their own sales as the website's sales..." its not clear to me how working on a Saturday is required in this? Can they only fake sales on the weekend? I can't follow the causality in this sentence.
I think the latter part of that sentence clarifies it well. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to change it. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, third paragraph: "...everyone to stay in the office overtime instead of coming in for the Saturday" This is confusing, we just read they are forced to work Saturday, then the next sentence says Jim finds a way for them to avoid working on Saturday. This needs clarification. Also the sentence should say: "...to stay in the office to work overtime instead..."
Changed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, third paragraph: "They all agree with the plan..." should be: "They all agree to the plan..."
Changed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, third paragraph: "...9:00 in the late evening..." 9:00 should be 9:00pm. I would argue that 9:00pm is not the late evening.
Changed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section, third paragraph: "...gates locked, directly resulted from Jim forgetting to tell the security guard that they were staying overtime." should be "directing resulting from..." or better, something like: ...gates locked. Jim had forgotten to tell the security guard that they were working late."
Changed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these are some examples, not an exhaustive list. I also have concerns about some of the sources used in the Critical response section, which at first glance seem to be from borderline notable blogs. Gwernol 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a detailed rundown on what I've done with the requests tomorrow. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to get an independent copy-edit of the article later on this afternoon. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm happy to revisit my opinion after further copy editing. Feel free to ping me on my talk page when its ready for another look. Oh, and per the instructions at the top of this page, you should removed the {{done}} tags from your responses above. Good luck, Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've removed the tags, also. Mastrchf (t/c) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to update this, I've requested a copy-edit from another person, and hopefully they will be able to complete it soon. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Added another website for the statistics. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first instance of using this source is from an interview, which I feel is a okay use in this case, and the second is a fan-voted rankings from a fansite that's frequently mentioned by cast and crew of the show, and is arguably the most popular Office fansite. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information that we've used from this website are direct quotes from actors. To me that seems about as reliable as you can get. Should I find a new source? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here as above. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, with interviews, we need to know that the site hosting the interview is reliably hosting the interview. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little too much overlinking of cast-and-characters in the article. Mindy Kaling alone is linked five times. "making out" is not formal language. indopug (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed multiple instances of overlinking, and reworded the caption. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. "although that probably has something to do with there being no Grey's Anatomy and a repeat of CSI." again, very informal and vague language. indopug (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And i believe user polls and the like are discouraged on Wikipedia; I'm not sure though. indopug (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the statement. And for right now, I think we should leave the poll in, unless many object to it. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. Disappointing lack of any serious sources here. Almost the entire article is sourced to primary sources or blogs with extremely questionable reliability. Reliable secondary sources are needed throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you suggest are "extremely questionable"? I don't see the problem with a large number of primary sources either. Mastrchf (t/c) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most blogs are extremely questionable, as there is no fact-checking or discernible editorial process. Fan blogs are doubly so and also lack neutrality. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a basic requirement of FA criterion 1c, and calls for reliable, secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure that the images contribute much, but otherwise it looks good. --NE2 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel that big paragraph about the former-basketballer's kiss falls a little short of being "encyclopedic" information ("Mostly lip-a little tongue-but mostly lips"). Trim it a little please. indopug (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and removed the part about the kiss. I agree, a bit un-encyclopedic. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after copy editing attempt: This article needs to be reworked by the authors, or by someone who is willing to study the sources carefully, if it is to become a featured article. Many portions are ambiguous or even do not make sense, making copy editing difficult (I only copy edited a paragraph or so before deciding to post comments here). Examples below:

"but fail to get in because they do not have dates"
Why? The club requires attendees to have dates?
"rest of the employees are going to be forced to work on a Saturday to record their own sales as the website's sales"
How does working on a weekend lead to recording of worker's sales as websites's sales?
"Production" section
The whole section reads like a collection of random facts. What is so significant about the stunts in the episode that warrants such a list of seemingly minor stunts?
"Reception" section
Too many quoations, in my opinion. Consider working the quotations into the text.

Consider reading the article from the viewpoint of someone who has no clue about the episode. All the best! -Samuel Tan 08:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criteria 3 - The two images have the same rationale "To illustrate the episode for readers", if one illustrates the episode, then the other is not needed WP:NFCC#3, and neither of them seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:09, 20 July 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_article_candidates/Night_Out/archive1&oldid=1181584321"