Arrested Development (TV series)

Partial self-nom. The character and themes/characteristics sections are particularly thorough. I will be working to correct any problems that arise in this FAC, so please frequently check this nomination for updates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 08:25

• Object, for several reasons:
  1. The image Image:GOB on stage.jpg does not have the proper copyright info; also, the article lacks images as a whole. Try and find some as they add variety.
     • Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19
  2. Some of the English is awkward. I'd advise the article to be copy-edited.
     • I've copyedited some of the sections that I thought needed improving. If you want more changes, please be more specific about what needs changing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:19
  3. Following the "Spoilers warning" tag, there should be another tag that reads "Spoilers end here". If you don't add this, then some people might think that the plot of the article never comes to a conclusion; that's a crucial issue. Fix it, please. --Hollow Wilerding 13:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     • I don't think it's that simple. There are spoilers throughout the article, not just in the plot section. I've never heard of this "end spoilers" notice, except as used on internet forum discussions. I don't think people will believe that the "plot" section constitutes the entire article without this notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19

Better English and images, but still lacking the spoilers tag. I've placed it on the talk page for you to view and include in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We appear to have paved a path. Excellent job! --Hollow Wilerding 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - I thought the article was quite well written, but only two references? A featured article should cite its sources much more than that. I suspect a lot of the information was gleaned from some of those "external sites", and could thus be moved to the references section. With more references, I'd be likely to support. Fieari 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added more references that were used in creating the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:56
• Support. Good article, comprehensive. Two notes. One, the date for the DVD release is clearly wrong--it's before the show is said to have been first broadcast. And the reference section is wholly inadequate. Where are the printed articles, e.g. Entertainment Weekly, Variety? (Cf. Dawson's Creek). PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the DVD date (it's a typo on Amazon's site). I don't understand your last question, do you want critical reviews of the show? The Dawson's Creek article overkills it on the references section. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 17:37
  • I've added some prominent reviews, including Entertainment Weekly, in keeping with WikiProject Television. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 20:21
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-organized overview of the show. Valid concerns raised above seem to have since been addressed. Andrew Levine 18:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great article for a great show. Every stated problem has been addressed so far, any other comments for improvement are appreciated. --TheMidnighters 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, on numerous isses

1. The lead is too focussed on the broadcast of the show in the US. eg Three unaired episodes will run in the show's regular time slot beginning December 5th, 2005. The five remaining episodes may air later this season, or possibly over the summer. It also focusses too much on the shows demise.
   • Fixed, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:04
2. There is no detailed information later in the article on where else the show is aired or how critics/viewers in other countries have received the show, and how it rated in other countries.
   • Done, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 06:15
3. There is no detail on how the show rated in the US, it is mentioned that ratings were low, how low, ratings information should be available and cited.
   • Done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 01:16
4. The numbered notes in text do not have corresponding numbered references.
   • Fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:12
5. If the trivia section must stay- I think an attempt should be made to turn it into prose rather than have it presented as a list.
   • I've removed some of the unnecessary trivia, and shortened the others. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:18
6. External links, especially to fan sites and to the petitions are excessive.
   • I've removed several unnecessary links, and think the rest are alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 01:27
7. Dawson's Creek has a good section on the how the show was created and production information, this article should probably have a similar section.
   • Done, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:05
8. The prose is average, brackets are used too frequently to explain things that can be described in the text, word order and phrasing are uncomfortable in parts, and there are innacuacies for example psycharists don't get disbarred.
   • I've removed all of the unnecessary parenthetical comments, fixed the psychiatrist wording, and made other general cleanups and removals. If you find anything else a problem, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:52

--nixie 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks Brian, the article has improved alot. I would like to see fair use rationales and source information added to both the cast photos, which currently lack source information. Ideally the screenshots should also have fair use rationales, and there are probably a few too many screenshots.--nixie 12:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone complained above that there needed to be more images, so I added more. Then, someone removed a few saying that there needed to be fewer fair use images. I think the current amount is alright, since they are all talked about in the text. I've added source info for the two cast photos. The fair use rationale is already on their pages, in the ((promotional)). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 16:58
    • I've also replaced some of the images with publicity-photo equivalents, for which the fair use rationale is always much stronger. The rest are discussed enough in the text that I think it's alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 17:22

• Comment I suggest that more prestigious sources be found for the critics' reviews quotes e.g. Variety, the New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter. I would also suggest that all reference to non-US critics and non-US screening details of the show be removed (except for the bare fact that it has been broadcast in these countries), in order to make the article's context more focussed and established (and no need to update about when which season is showing in the UK; and it also gets rid of the question of if you mention the UK, why not every other country its shown in?) just my two cents. Bwithh 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The international content was added in response to the Oppose vote above. I think it is alright to keep it in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:05
    • The tag is not enough, the image description page needs to specify the rationale for use in a particular article, see the images in Cool (song) for a recent example.--nixie 12:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done and done. I removed less important images, and added rationale for the remaining ones, in the wording used at Cool (song). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-26 14:29
        • That's everything I can think of taken care of, support--nixie 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Carnildo hasn't voted on this FAC yet so I'll cover his ground. The seven screenshots used are all copyrighted, and it seems excessive to use them all. Do we really need the blue Tobias pic, the boat skit pic, or the shot of Charlize Theron? Wikipedia needs to limit the amount of copyrighted pics from the smae source, or else we are testing the bounds of the fairuse on these stills. Please deal with this, and just keep the most relevant and useful images. Harro5 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and done. I removed less important images, and added detailed rationale for the remaining ones. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-26 14:29
    • Support with a fair use rationale on the logo in the info box. Unless anyone else sees problems with the images, this is a very good article on a hilarious show. Brian, would you be interested in helping bring Seinfeld up to this standard after its recent FAC? Harro5 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]