Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Seinfeld (season 1)/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [1].

Seinfeld (season 1)

I am renominating this list at FLC. --Gman124^talk 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

~~Weak Oppose~~/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - its improved since then, but still some problems

Lead

NBC executive Rick Ludwin believed the series had potential, and gave Seinfeld a budget to create four episodes, which began airing on May 31, 1990. - remove the comma before and (in this context its not needed)
- Done --Gman124^talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The season finale was aired on June 21, 1990. - remove the was (it serves no purpose and the same is stated w/o it)
- Done --Gman124^talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seinfeld later went on to become one of the most successful sitcoms; - this statement is going to need more verification than just what TV Guide stated about it, this is a controversial statement and needs more verification
- Done --Gman124^talk 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons 1 & 2 DVD box set was released by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment in the United States and Canada on November 23, 2004 thirteen years after it had completed broadcast on television. - comma after the date
- Done --Gman124^talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption: The front cover of the Seinfeld: Seasons 1 & 2 DVD boxset, the first two seasons were sold together as one boxset. - change the comma to a semi colon
- Done --Gman124^talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The series is set in an apartment block on New York City's Upper West Side; however, the first season is mostly filmed at Ren-Mar Studios in Hollywood. - the semi colon is best as a comma

Please note that the semicolon is grammatically correct in this case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire was billed as one of the stars of the show; however, when the series was picked up it was decided that there was no need for a regular female waitress, so Garlington's role was dropped. - add a comma after picked up
- Done Gman124^talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the pilot, Jerry refers to Kramer as Kessler; however, his name was changed to Kramer in rest of the series. - the semi colon should be a comma

Please note that the semicolon is grammatically correct in this case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer was named after a real person, he was called "Kessler" in the pilot episode because of worries about the rights to use the name. - the comma should be a semi colon
- Done Gman124^talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eileen" was the original name for the Elaine character; however, it was changed just a few days before production. - the semi colon should be a comma

Please note that the semicolon is grammatically correct in this case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to all of your comments, it can be either or, because I've seen sentences like this in FACs, and they were in commas, so it can be in either form.--TRUCO 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think KV5 is correct, if you search for how to use however in sentences it always says to use a semi-colon before however and a comma after it. Here are some of the sites I searched up about punctuation rules [2] [3] . Gman124^talk 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that means FAC reviewers were wrong.--TRUCO 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld was produced by Castle Rock Entertainment and distributed by Columbia Pictures Television and Columbia TriStar Television (now Sony Pictures Television) and was aired of NBC in the US. - comma after the parenthesis
- Done Gman124^talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pilot was directed by Art Wolff; however, when the series was picked up Tom Cherones became the director for rest of the season. - comma before Tom
- Done Gman124^talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Soon after the "Stock Tip" aired, NBC executives ordered 13 additional Seinfeld episodes to air as midseason replacements during the 1990–91 season. - it should be made clear that "Stock Tip" is an episode
- Done Gman124^talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon Tartikoff, the program executive for comedy programming, kept a scene from "The Stake Out" cued up on his office VCR to show guests how funny Seinfeld was; despite this, NBC held off broadcasting the last four episodes until summer. - add "the" before summer and what year is this?
- Done Gman124^talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

Jerry tells George about a woman named Laura he met in Michigan and is coming to New York. - change the and is to "that is"
- Done Gman124^talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George gets a stock tip and after going in for $5,000, he passes the tip on to Jerry who invests $2,500. - comma before and
- Done Gman124^talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is there a reference which is verifying the entire list? In that way it can be made into a general ref like it is in this FL?
- On the Official site you can search the individual episodes by selecting a season at the following site [4], I don't know whether to add as a General reference or not. --Gman124^talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you can make this a general reference.--TRUCO 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done --Gman124^talk 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #10 is missing a publisher
- Done Gman124^talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes tvdvdreviews.com or Americanherticage.com reliable?--TRUCO 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why they can't be use. Are they like user edited sites, so is that why they can't be used? --Gman124^talk 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - IDK but some of those refs don't seem 100% reliable, but I would let the source checker check those out.--TRUCO 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To correct a correction, when referring to a person or fictional person, use who and not that. Also, "was aired of NBC" should be "aired on NBC". no need for the "was" and "of" is obviously a typo. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Gman124^talk 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn't meet criterion 1 (professional standards of writing) of the FL criteria. Examples from the lead alone:

"The pilot met with poor reviews, as a result, NBC passed on the show." Not a grammatical sentence; the first comma should be a semicolon.
- Done --Gman124^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and gave Seinfeld a budget to create four episodes" I think "allotted" is a better word here.
- Done --Gman124^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which began airing on May 31, 1990" So all four episodes began airing on that date? I don't think so. Try: "the first of which began airing on May 31, 1990
- Done --Gman124^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Seinfeld later went on to become one"-->Seinfeld became
- Done --Gman124^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the most successful sitcoms" In terms of what? Popularity, revenues, cultural references, etc.
- Done fixed to most popular as stated in the USA Today article. --Gman124^talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As well as every episode from the two seasons"-->In addition to every episode from the two seasons
- Done Gman124^talk 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"features bonus material" Comma after here. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gman124^talk 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - First, I was under the impression that there was a minimum number requirement for featured lists. I'm not seeing it in the criteria but I have seen it mentioned in other FLC reviews. Five items may be too few for a featured list. If not, then my concerns are...
Episode summaries may be too detailed, possibly implicating copyright as a derivative work although I am not an expert in that field.
- I don't think they are too detailed, in fact I think it could be longer. When this list was nominated previously, someone opposed it having one line summary and said it should be "3-4 times bigger than they are". Now that they are 3-4 lines long now you're saying it should be less. I don't know what the heck's goin on with that. --Gman124^talk 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I'm not an expert. I'm going by WP:PLOTSUM and my own previous experience with GA nominations for films and TV episodes. The ideais that plot summaries shouldn't serve to replace the experience of viewing the episode. If others feel that the summaries as written are acceptable then I'll certainly defer to their judgment. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Otto4711

~~All publication names in references need to be italicized. Use the "work" field in the template.~~
- Done --Gman124^talk 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dabomb87 fixed it. --Gman124^talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes tvdvdreview.com, lovetoknow.com, tvshowsondvd.com and epguide.com reliable sources?~~
- Would this be ok, if I use it to replace tvshowsondvd.com? --Gman124^talk 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks all right to replace the one website. Any ideas about the others?

Done --Gman124^talk 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose remains awkward in a number of places, mostly because of overly fancy use of semicolons. I suggest in some instances making multiple sentences. Particular prose issues:

"Season one of Seinfeld...originally aired its pilot..." No, NBC aired the pilot. Is it necessary to note that NBC is a US broadcast television network? I suggest stopping the first sentence after the date and Starting the next sentence along the lines of "Originally called The Seinfeld Chronicles, the series name was..."
- Done, though I have to ask that do everyone around the world know what NBC is? Gman124^talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Claire was billed as one of the stars of the show; however, when the series was picked up, it was decided that there was no need for a regular female waitress; therefore, Garlington's role was dropped." needs to be reworked. "Claire" wasn't billed as a star; the actress was. Multiple semicolons in the same sentence is ungrammatical.
- I think it has been fixed, but not sure. --Gman124^talk 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"However" in many cases is unnecessary and more will be made unnecessary with a rework of the prose; it's also repetitive. Same with "therefore."~~
- Done removed all instances of therefore and only one However remains. --Gman124^talk 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire "Crew" section is in passive voice, also rendering it repetitive. Every sentence is structured "Foo was boo." Vary the structure.
- Done I have shortned and merged it with the production section. --Gman124^talk 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still in passive voice. Vary the sentence structure. "Castle Rock Entertainment produced Seinfeld and Columbia Pictures Television and Columbia TriStar Television (now Sony Pictures Television) distributed the series. Seinfeld aired on NBC in the US."

Changed it to how you wrote. --Gman124^talk 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...allotted Seinfeld a budget..." I realize you changed this in response to another reviewer and "allotted" is fine but surely it should be "...allotted the creators..." or "...allotted the producers..."
- Done Gman124^talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The pilot met with poor reviews." → "The pilot was met with poor reviews." Suggest cutting the semicolon and the phrase "as a result" in favor of a simple "and" both in the lead and the reception section.
- Done Gman124^talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the producer giving a four-episode budget is confusing. If NBC funded four episodes, did they really "pass" on the series? It seems like if the series went into production for NBC then NBC actually picked up the series, especially since you go on to talk about the four-episode budget being an order.
- Done I think I have fixed this part now. I have also removed this sentence from the reception section, since it was already stated in the lead. --Gman124^talk 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not clear to me. I don't understand how a show that is ordered by a network executive is considered not picked up by the network. Was Ludwin acting on his own initiative without network approval? Did he have some sort of a discretionary fund that allowed him to budget the show without the network picking it up? I just am not getting it.

That Executive didn't immediately ordered more episodes, he did it almost a year later, so wouldn't it be considered not picked up from the time NBC decided not to pick up the show until the executive dedided to have more episodes? I have added "almost a year later" before the bit about the executive. --Gman124^talk 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The first and second paragraphs of the production section should be merged as they both deal with casting and changes. Do the setting and filming location bring additional value to the article?~~
- Done I have merged entire production section into one section, and removed the line about location. Gman124^talk 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Under the current casting and changes delete the second use of the phrase "in the pilot".~~
- Done --Gman124^talk 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"US" → "United States".
- Dabomb87 fixed it. --Gman124^talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US to United States in the first paragraph of the Production section.

"due to" → "because of" This is a personal peeve of mine as I loathe that construction but if all other concerns are addressed I would not continue to oppose on this basis.
- Done --Gman124^talk 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything. Some kinda nitpicky stuff but other things that are more important. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I think there is some sort of exception for episode lists (WRT listed items), especially since this one has a production and reception section. 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Some additional issues:

~~All retrieval dates in the references section should be in the same format.~~

Those are different because note 8 uses the cite news template while others use the cite web template. I'm not sure how to make the date come up on cite news, like it does on cite web. --Gman124^talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a difference between "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" and "Sony Pictures" for sourcing purposes?~~

"Sony Picture" is a television and movie production company, and a subsidiary of "Sony", and "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" is a home video distribution company, and I think a subsidiary of Sony Pictures. --Gman124^talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"DVD box set" in the lead should not be italicized.~~

Done Gman124^talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Two uses of "originally" in the lead.~~

Done Gman124^talk 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps explain what a "show runner" is?~~

Done --Gman124^talk 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps include a link to Nielsen Ratings? Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done Gman124^talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Oppose

The reception section is not WP:NPOV as there are no negative reviewers. I notice a negative mention in the lead I suggest using it to balance out the reception section.
~~Ref 3: TV.com is not a reliable source~~
- That is not TV.com it is actually TVGuide.com --Gman124^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry that was a complete error on my part. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose problems - a few examples, by no means the whole story
- ~~"NBC passed on the show" - passed is to colloquial~~
  - Changed passed to decided not to pick up --Gman124^talk 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Larry David was the main show runner for this season, who was also one of the producers" - also is redundant, and it reads funny with the "who". Use "and one of the producers" instead.
  - Done --Gman124^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"Soon after the "Stock Tip" episode", the table calls it "The Stock Tip", which one is it?~~
  - Changed it to The Stock Tip, since that's the episode name. Gman124^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just removed the line also. I don't know if it is necessary to say how many more episodes wee ordered after saying that the next season was ordered in the previous line. --Gman124^talk 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"the first of many nominations" - not very neutral, try listing them instead of using weasel words like many.~~
  - I have removed this. --Gman124^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact on further investigation "This episode was nominated for a Writer's Guild Award, the first of many nominations for the series. Brandon Tartikoff kept a scene from "The Stake Out" cued up on his office VCR to show guests how funny Seinfeld was; despite this, NBC was held off broadcasting the first four episodes until summer." is purely copied from [5] - this copyvio (this caused me to change to a "Strong Oppose")
- I removed this, but kept the Writer's Guild nomination part. Also is it still copy-vio if we add the link where we got the stuff from as a reference? --Gman124^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You would have to put in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck some comments, but still oppose as I still feel this list is below featurable quality.

Ref 11 in no way cites the production codes.
"The pilot met with poor reviews" Like? Try and give an example.
For WP:NPOV try and provide a worldwide perspective. Did it air in any other countries.
Is Seinfield available on any digital medium. iTunes, Amazon Unbox and the like?
Citations for DVD region release dates?

I realise there was there are only 5 episodes but the whole thing (lead, reception section) just seem a bit short. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think an article that only lists 5 things is really not a FLC. It should be reviewed as a normal article. The criteria for FL are to address specific challenges in the wrting of encylopedic lists, that this article doesn't face. I know the "at least 10 items" is unoffical, but this article shows why it exists. Eg. We don't consider a 5 book series to need a list.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment General feeling is that this isn't a list with some prose, but an article with a list, so even though it's well written and may well meet all the FL criteria, if it isn't a list it can't be listed at WP:FL. I think you'd have a good chance at WP:GA WP:FAC though. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:11, 14 February 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.