Hi, this article has really improved since its last (suddenly interrupted) FAC, thanks to various copy-edits. If you have comments about the cast image, see the previous FAC. I believe the article meets all the criteria now. Thanks.--Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The character has similarities to Sherlock Holmes; both are forensic geniuses, musicians, drug users, aloof, and largely friendless." Colon, surely. In your list, where is the boundary between nouns and adjectives? Jerks the reader.
It has been largely filmed. I find "Holmes uses a similar method" a little difficult, since it was so long ago. Unsure. Present for House and past for SH might be a good device ...?
Why has been? the show still films there. Holmes comment is fixed.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate those fly-spots after every single "Dr". Oh well, it's your choice, I guess. While I usually ask for more constrained blue in links, via piping, here, it's odd that "Dr" is not included in all of those name-links.
What exactly do you want me to do?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. "Dr." included in blue links when title preceding name. (As our friend Tony knows, those "fly-spots" are good American English style.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Conception"—second, maybe third paras are stubby.
Maybe, but merging them is hard, do you have any suggestions?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merged third with fourth paragraph, eliminating some stubbiness. Given both the verifiable substance and the structural logic of the subsection, it looks like the second paragraph works best as is. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've taken care of that one as well now.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"doctors...check"—spaces (non-breaking, probably) either side of the ellipsis dots.
Multi-clutter citation numbers: Is it possible to conflate each set into one? If they're not used elsewhere, I can't see why not: "Critics considered the series to be a bright spot amid FOX's schedule, largely filled with reality shows,[112][113][114] and reacted positively to the character of Gregory House.[115][116] Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him, "the most electrifying character to hit television in years".[117] Critics have compared House to fictional detectives Adrian Monk, Hercule Poirot, Nero Wolfe, and Perry Cox.[118][119][120] Laurie's performance in the role has been praised by critics.[119][121]". So hard to read; so unattractive.
Yes, this is something of which all nominators should be aware. The simple merging of unique cites goes a long way toward making an article more readable. I'll take care of them here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Table: I'd always use just two closing digits, and here it will make the whole thing more manageable within the limited space: e.g., 2006–07. Remove "in" from "in millions". Do you need the #s? Distribution table: the countries (exotic and little known) are all linked? They don't even pipe to something more specific. Please ...
Ref list. Do you really like the ISO gobbly dates? Not good when you get strings such as "2008-01-29. No. 10, season 4." Trust me, most readers would love the month to be spelled out. But it's up to you.
Fixed by Dabomb87.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is good as far as I can tell on a swift look through. But it could be polished up a bit. Tony(talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used a script to convert to MDY format. Revert if you don't like. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the episode articles appear to be nonfunctional (check 'em out).
That's a problem with the cite episode template. It is protected so I can't change it.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the citations list just the writer(s); some list David Shore and the writer(s); some (e.g., "Frozen", "Honeymoon") have no credits at all. These must be made completely consistent. If you choose to include Shore in all (as opposed to none), then he must be identified as "Creator" and the writer(s) as "Writer(s)" (in that case, for episodes written by Shore, he should be identified as "Creator/Writer").
All episode refs only include the writer.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. It seems weird to learn about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron romances only in Critical reception. And there's no mention of the House-Cuddy...whatever it is...at all. All of these relationships should be mentioned either in Series overview or Cast or characters (where it does mention that Cameron "developed an affection for Chase"--that's fine, but insufficient.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on that, however, the full fifth season hasn't been broadcasted in the Netherlands yet (that's where I edit from), so I can't fully describe the Thirteen-Foreman or Huddy relationship.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the romances could be mentioned in the main characters section since they are all between main characters. It might also be a good idea to mention House and Cameron's relationship. That could be fit in the first paragraph of the recurring characters section since it ties in with Vogler. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Information on relationships has been added to the main characters section. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casting, then Cast and characters, with a template linking back to a section within the same article?? Have never seen such a layout, doesn't seem optimal. Also, there are collapsed templates in "Critics' top ten lists"; default should be show, not hide, for printability and mirrors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The casting section could be moved, but I think it casting has more to do with production than with the characters. Also, the reason why it links back to the same article is for people who are looking for casting info and might have skipped it.--Music26/11 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Music here that the casting section in this article is probably more suited to be in the production section. After the production section you have the series overview and characters sections which are both in-universe, whereas the casting section is out of universe and probably fits better in production. This is possibly true of all TV show articles and putting casting in the characters section might not be the best way to go about it. A way to solve this issue for this article would be to rename the "Cast and characters" section simply "Characters" and delete the template for the casting note. I'm not sure if that really improves anything though, it's probably fine the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Music and Marble on the basic structure. The same thought did occur to me about renaming "Cast and characters" simply "Characters". What do you think, Music? The template as well, though it certainly does no harm, is not necessary. If its elimination brings the article more into conformity with standard style, that's a valid argument for cutting it. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion ties into another situation I'm thinking about right now. I made some edits to the article today and one of them cut a mention of Laurie as an executive producer because the reference and other evidence doesn't back it up. However I'd like to add that reference back in somewhere as it mentions Laurie made around $400,000 per episode in season 5, which is pretty interesting information I think. I don't know where it would best fit in the article though. It doesn't exactly fit in casting because it's about a cast member but not the casting process, and it doesn't fit in with the cast and characters because that section is about in-universe characters, not how much money Laurie is making. So basically after thinking about this I think the best thing to do would be to just rename the section "Main characters" (or simply "Characters" if people prefer) and remove the casting note since there won't be any ambiguity anymore. I think I'll just do that now, if anyone disagrees or wants to modify it you can revert my change. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the title of that section to "Characters and story arcs" which I think fits well. The comprehensiveness of this article looks good. One thing I think is missing though is a little more information about the story arcs. House getting shot which was the arc in the season 2 finale and beginning of season 3 is mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes section but I think that could probably use a mention somewhere in the "Characters and story arcs" section too. In response to DCGeist's comments, relationships could be expanded a little in that section as well. There were a couple major events that happened in the season 5 finale, those could probably be mentioned somehow. I will finish looking over the article and references and see if I find anything else than can be improved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the section to "Characters and story arcs" was a good decision, I'll try to add some more info regarding relationships etc. to the section tomorrow (I don't have a lot of time right now). Oh, I didn't know where to put the salary info either that's why I left it out, also is Laurie really not an executive producer? I think I saw his name after the credits once. That's it, thanks.--Music26/11 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: With additions and copyediting by various hands, the article is looking increasingly strong. On a structural level, I have only one remaining, relatively minor, concern. Do we really need a subsection and highly detailed table for DVD releases? The table is pretty, but doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic. I argue for cutting the table and simply making the text of the subsection the last paragraph of the parent Distribution section.
Please note that I have already cut another pretty table from that section. As I explained in my edit summary, the table that gave the networks where the show airs in six selected countries was both (a) 100% redundant of the accompanying text and (b) wildly incomplete--implying that the show airs only in English-speaking countries. On that note, we should have a sentence or two on the show's presence in non-English-speaking countries; there must be something out there up to WP:V standard.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched quite a bit, and there doesn't seem to be any good sources for its overall global distribution. I was able to find good references for its popularity in a couple of non-English-speaking countries, and have added a sentence covering that.DocKino (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just found and added much more on foreign distribution from Variety.DocKino (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on all points here pretty much. Most people are reluctant to remove tables like these because they are pretty, but they don't really add much. What I think we should do is move all the relevent date information and references to the table already at List of House episodes, that way the information is still being used. But it's not that necessary or helpful to this article, it doesn't matter much what specific date each season's DVD was released in each region. The distributions section could and probably should be expanded a little with any relevant information that was lost, but I think you're right that none of the tables there add that much. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, there was a brief discussion regarding this just before the previous FAc (see this). You can remove it if you think it is redundant.--Music26/11 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Once the information on the main characters' relationships is added, I'm ready to support.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the info about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron relationships, and you guys did a good job cleaning the prose up and adding more references. I just added in info about House and Cuddy's relationship with some references. So I think this article might be ready for featured status. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment (unrelated to above update): I'm pretty sure I solved the "mystery" of Hugh Laurie as executive producer. Firstly though I have a question: is Film.com, which is part of RealNetworks, a reliable enough source to be used for a featured article such as this one? At a glance at the site and looking at their FAQs, it doesn't appear to accept member-submitted info like TV.com or IMDb, but I might be wrong. I ask because Film.com lists all the writer, producer, director, etc. info for all House episodes, which could be used for a reference in the "production team" section for the info about who wrote and directed the most episodes. I also ask because I discovered that Hugh Laurie was credited as executive producer for episodes 2 and 3 of season 5: [2], [3]. It appears those were the only 2 episodes he was given an executive producer credit and that would corroborate the reference that says he'll get a "producing credit", it was just for those 2 episodes. So I don't think he should be listed in the infobox under executive producers but it could be mentioned in the "production team" section he was for those 2 episodes. The question is if Film.com can be used as a reference. If it can't I found this Blogcritics reference that mentions Laurie as executive producer: [4], and Blogcritics appears to be deemed reliable since it's used in some other references in the article already. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Film.com looks like a good source. Everything I've been able to find out about it suggests that information-wise it is a completely professional site.—DCGeist (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrific job, everyone. With a lot of hard work, you've turned this into a high-quality, comprehensive TV series article.—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been a contributor to this article for awhile now, but had for a time not edited this article much. Big credit to Music2611 for greatly expanding the article and adding in a lot of references and pushing the article's comprehensiveness and verifiability to featured quality. Previous FAC was dominated by discussion on the image in the characters section, but that has been resolved. All issues brought up on this FAC have been resolved. Big thanks to all the editors who have helped make the final push to make this article comprehensive and have sharp prose. This article has been greatly polished since the start of this FAC, and I think is featured article quality now. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's there. I just want to say that there are articles that first come to FAC needing less substantive work than this one did when it first appeared here five weeks ago--but quite a few of those never make it all the way because psychological issues ("ownership", defensiveness, etc.) turn the effort to achieve FA standards into a trial. This FAC process, on the other hand, has been a pleasure to participate in. Thanks to LonelyMarble for all the effort on the article over the past 17 months, and a timely reappearance here; to DCGeist for some superb copyediting; and, of course, to Music2611--it's not only the effort of the nominator that makes the difference, but also the attitude. Well done. DocKino (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DocKino. I see no problems at all (and I'm a fan of the series and would really love to see it on the main page). It meets all of the criteria without question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, leaning toward support. I have a number of relatively small issues with the article, but they unfortunately add up to an oppose. Several of them, you can just ignore if you disagree (I have labeled these as such). Added: I have found a number of sources that are misrepresented in the article or used as citations for statements that they do not justify. This is absolutely unacceptable in any article, much less a featured one.
"FOX officially credits Shore as creator." I think this might read better as "only Shore". That's really nitpicky. Ignore if you like.
I think it's fine the way it is, saying "only" is possibly misleading and inaccurate because I'm sure FOX acknowledges the contributions of all the initial executive producers. Shore had a more prominent role as he wrote the pilot, and this is explained in the conception section. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Best as is.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"House's diagnostic team originally consists of " Should this really be present tense? I could go either way, but "At the end of the third season, this team is disbanded." is in past tense so I think the other sentence should be as well for consistency.
Addressed with "disbands". (Please be aware, "is disbanded" is not past tense, but simple present tense in passive voice. The passive voice was used to suggest the team was acted upon, but as two of the three [Foreman and Cameron] are agents of their own departure, the active voice is more appropriate.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, I quite glossed over the "is" the first time I read it and just saw "disbanded". I think disbands is the best anyway, though. Cool3 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rejoined by Foreman, House gradually selects three new team members: Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), and Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn)."
If the problem here is "Rejoined by Foreman", I don't think this is a problem. All prose about fictional storylines, as is the case in this article, should be in present tense, but qualifiers at the beginning of sentences like this one are fine I think. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my very humble opinion, again feel free to ignore, Amber is sufficiently significant to merit a mention in the lead.
The lead is already fleshed out and is a nice summary, I don't think it should be any longer. Some of the other recurring characters had comparable airtime as Amber, I think it's probably best to not mention any recurring characters in the lead to avoid making it too long. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's a sufficient amount of in-universe information in the lead already.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" After three seasons among the top ten rated shows in the United States, it fell to nineteenth overall during the 2008–09 season. " Shouldn't some mention of the first season be made?
I was initially going to make clear somehow that seasons 2–4 were among the top 10, but I don't think it's necessary. The lead is supposed to be a succinct summary and this is explained further on in the reception section. The fact that season 5 was 19th overall probably doesn't have to be mentioned. I think it's probably mentioned to help make the article neutral and because it's the latest season so it's more relevant for most readers. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better either to say something about the first season or drop the mention of Season 5. Although it is stated in the infobox, the number of seasons is not made clear anywhere in the lead. Mentioning 4 seasons makes it seem like there were 4 four seasons, not 5. Cool3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a little ambiguous but I changed it to make clear seasons 2, 3, and 4 were among the top 10. I don't really think a mention of season 1's ratings needs to be said because it would seem a bit awkward, whereas the latest season's ratings is more relevant. Plus, the final sentence of the lead already makes clear the show has aired for five seasons with a sixth scheduled for September 2009. I don't think there is any ambiguity here anymore. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" Gail Berman, made clear, "I want a medical show, but I don’t want to see white coats going down the hallway."" I think the quote needs better introduction than "made clear". I think it would be better to say something more like "told the creators"
"of Berton Roueché, a staff writer for The New Yorker between 1944 and 1994 who specialized in features about unusual medical cases" another comma is needed after 1994.
Done. (Though arguable: the second comma is only necessary if he specialized on medical features for other publications in addition to The New Yorker.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added." "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." What's the connection between the two? Did Shore add the idea of the curmudgeonly character or did he come up with the concept in response to someone else's demand for such a character?
The teaching hospital experience was the main influence on the character's personality.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that still doesn't make things quite clear. The passive voice in "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added" leaves me wondering who added it. "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." seems to imply that the idea came from Shore, but the article leaves this point frustratingly unclear. Did Shore simply respond to someone else's idea for a curmudgeonly character by drawing on his experiences, or was it his idea to have a curmudgeonly character?
I have fully addressed this issue now I believe. I have the season 1 DVD and on one of the bonus features called "The Concept" Shore makes clear that he was the one who felt there should be an interesting lead character. So hopefully I have removed the ambiguity here. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I gave it a little copyedit tweak. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but turned the opportunity down." Any idea why?
This is explained in the reference cited: [5]. It could be mentioned why in the article text but it doesn't seem necessary, it doesn't really have that much to do with House. Here is the quote from the reference that explains it:
"Friend and Lerner have been writing as a duo for 13 years. When offered a place on the House writing team before for season one they turned down the offer. “We had just come off of the drama Boston Public.” They felt that House “was so good that it didn’t make sense to be on FOX;” it didn’t fit the network’s typical audience. And they were concerned that the network would cancel it without giving it enough of a chance. Instead, they went to work on LAX, which they thought was a “shoe-in” with Heather Locklear in the lead role (it wasn’t, and was soon cancelled). So they watched House’s season one “from afar,” seeing it really take off by mid-season. They were impressed (and astounded) that the series, as it unfolded, was as good as the pilot. Which, they noted, doesn’t often happen. “They didn’t have to change anything.” When lightning struck a second time and Katie Jacobs again offered the partners a spot on House, they jumped at the opportunity." LonelyMarble (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think that necessarily needs to be in the article. Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"only Greg Yaitanes has directed as many as 10 episodes." Does this mean he has directed exactly ten episodes or more than 10?
"According to Shore, "three different doctors ... check everything we do"." Any idea who the other two are?
This quote is simply from the reference cited: [6]. Here is the exact quote: "There are three different doctors who check everything we do and we have a medical consultant on staff all the time," Shore says. "The best thing we can get is our three doctors disagreeing, because as a writer that is the best thing, because you are wide open. If the doctors don't agree that means there is no right answer." Research into the doctors' actual names could be tried, but I doubt the information is readily available, and I don't think it really matters much. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The son of a doctor, Ran Laurie, he said he felt guilty for "being paid more to become a fake version of my own father."" the sentence switches from "he" to "my" the quote should probably be redone as "fake version of [his] father."
"As well as the script for House, actor Robert Sean Leonard had received the script for the CBS show Numb3rs." I think this is an odd way of introducing Leonard. Would it be more appropriate to start the sentence with his name?
"He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but that his lengthy friendship with Singer helped win him the part of Dr. Wilson." This sentence is also put together oddly, making it appear only incidental that he got the role. I'd suggest something more like "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but won the part of Dr. Wilson, a fact he credited at least in part to his lengthy friendship with Singer." I'm not married to that particular wording, but I think something along those lines would be good.
The current construction of the sentence is perfectly fine, and more terse than virtually any plausible alternative that conveys the same essential information. (For example, the proposal is six words longer, but conveys no additional information.)—DCGeist (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ultimately, the decision was made to add three new regular cast members." Any idea why? Also, who made the decision?
The reference cited for this information does not contain an online link so I cannot immediately find the answers to your questions. The current reference is: Finn, Natalie (October 4, 2007). "Vatican Decries Golden Compass' Lost Soul". E!. The date of the reference corresponds to the beginning of season 4, so the reference seems to be for this information. Offline references are perfectly acceptable for featured articles so this is not really a problem. Perhaps more information about this specific decision can be found in online sources. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after some searching, I've come across something rather troubling. That story is available online [7], but it was published in December not October (title and author the same, so I'm fairly sure that it is the same story) and it says absolutely nothing about House. This is a big problem. Cool3 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what probably happened. When this reference was first posted it contained a link to a page on the site http://uk.eonline.com/. That link is now dead so someone must have just deleted the url from the reference. This is usually not a good idea as the Internet Archive can retrieve web pages of dead links, however it usually takes at least 6 months. I checked this dead link in the archive and it is not there yet. I think what happens on this E! site is they list a bunch of news stories, so the title of this reference was simply of the first news story perhaps and is thus mislabeled. This reference was initially put in by Music when he did the first major expansion so I'm sure there has just been a mix up over time. I and other editors have been checking all the references to make sure they back up what they are referencing. Thank you for discovering some that were incorrect, I doubt this is a big problem with the article though. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that bogus reference and replaced it with a reference that specifically backs up the fact that they originally were going to cast two new people, but decided on three. To answer your original questions, it was the producers who made the decision, which can already be extrapolated from the current sentence structure. The reference does not specifically say why but I'm sure the answer is probably just what is explained in this reference: [8], which is already referenced in the section. The fact that the producers fell in love with more characters than they thought they would. This can be quoted from Katie Jacobs in the section if you want. But I replaced the reference so this issue is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any more info on the style? That section feels a bit short.
Searched for it, but couldn't find anything, sorry. Maybe another editor comes across something, but I wouldn't count on it.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I identified a couple more significant visual points in the Jacobs interview and added them to the section.—DCGeist (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the additions. Anything else? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fleshed this out with observations from a couple of critics concerning the special effects. DocKino (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added technical information on effects from extensive article on same.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The names are shown next to, or superimposed upon, old-fashioned anatomical drawings, X-ray images of the human body or graphic design images of body parts." and " with Morrison's name, but FOX disagreed. Instead, her title card shows an aerial shot of rowers on Princeton University's Lake Carnegie." There seems to be a contradiction here.
""Everybody lies", or proclaims during the team's deliberations, "The patient is lying" or "The symptoms never lie"." This is phrased as if these are all three equivalent, but the last one has a totally different meaning, which I believe should be better drawn out in the surrounding text.
Is there a reason you don't mention Tritter in the overview? That whole saga would seem highly relevant to the paragraph on Vicodin.
The "Series overview" section is meant to explain what can be expected in any single episode, as most episodes of House can stand on their own for viewing purposes, regardless if the viewer is aware of what story arc is going on. Tritter is already fully mentioned in the recurring characters section and works better there in my opinion as he is a story arc. House's hallucinations are also a story arc, but I'm not really sure where a mention of him checking into the psychiatric hospital (which I think should be mentioned) would fit better than the paragraph on Vicodin in the overview, that's why that is mentioned there. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Adding Tritter to the overview would disrupt the existing structure, which is logical and coherent.—DCGeist (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see what you're trying to accomplish there. I think, though, that working along the same lines it would be best to move the stuff on the hallucinations and mental hospital to the recurring characters section under Amber (where some of it is already covered)
The problem with moving the mention of House's hallucinations and the psychiatric hospital to the recurring section is two-fold. Firstly House is not a recurring character and it would seem out of place there, whereas Tritter is and fits perfectly there. Secondly, the existing flow right now is House's hallucinations are explained at the end of series overview; in the main characters section one of the results of House's hallucination, he and Cuddy, is mentioned; in the recurring characters section another result of House's hallucinations, Amber, is mentioned. Everything flows and fits perfectly as it is, I don't think anything needs to be changed. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current structure makes the most sense and should not be changed. From a copyediting perspective, if I saw the material on the hallucinations and the hospital introduced in the "Recurring characters" subsection, I'd move it right to where it is now. Please leave as is. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As of June 2009, there is no indication that a show featuring Douglas is under development." This is uncited, and in my opinion, borders on original research.
Well, this is one of those situations where common sense obliges us to flirt with what seems original research (what it actually represents, of course, is extensive research in search of any indication that a show is in development, the failure to find any, and the common sense conclusion that there is none). Without the sentence, the implication of the paragraph is that such a show is presently under development—an apparently false implication. There is no perfect solution to a case such as this, but the present solution is the one that best serves our readers. I'd oppose any change here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but I still see it as a problem. "No indication" carries an air of great authority. While Google search or LexisNexis searches may demonstrate no indication, perhaps an expert would know something that we don't (unless one of the editors here happens to be a TV producer). Is there anything you could possibly cite this to? Some TV columnist who has commented on the lack of any indication? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent another solid chunk of time looking into this. There is simply no sign of anything happening on this and no authoritative source commenting on it since last fall. And I disagree that "'No indication' carries an air of great authority". It is merely and purely descriptive. If we flatly stated something like "Plans for the show have not progressed" that would be an overauthoritative claim. I think we're well within appropriate bounds here given the available information and lack thereof. DocKino (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The show has been nominated for various Golden Globe Awards" This would seem to imply that it received none. I would recommend adding "and received one". Also, how many total Golden Globe nominations has it received?
Rephrasing done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And total nominations added. Fully addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"For a charity action, American Apparel 100% cotton T-shirts bearing the phrase "Everybody Lies" were sold in limited numbers from April 23 to April 30, 2007." Any idea how many were sold? How much money was raised?
The ref doesn't say, info is unavailable.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reference did say they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the charity, so I have added this information in. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following links in the citations section appear not to be working: 18, 19, 48, 65, 69, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113. Addendum, should the page be changed before these are addressed, the number refer to this version.
As described above—in response to my initial raising of the matter—that's a problem with the protected cite episode template. Once those in charge of the template resolve the issue, those links will be operable. There's no way to correct the problem on this end. We could eliminate the links entirely, but I think it's best to maintain them in faith that the template problem will be corrected.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you just replace the spaces with underscores (_) the links will work properly. Cool3 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct! Thank you. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In almost every episode, his investigatory method is to logically eliminate diagnoses as they are proved impossible; Holmes used a similar method." This is cited to the Hartford Courant. The actual article in that paper states the following and only the following: "House (Fox, 9 p.m.). Hugh Laurie is terrific as a bitter, brilliant doctor at a teaching college in Newark, N.J., who loves science but hates patients. With deductive abilities like those of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. House, who walks with a cane, is surrounded by three potential Watsons, who second-guess and follow the brilliant curmudgeon. Though it is marred by some of those useless into-the-bloodstream special effects, it's one of the smartest things on network TV. The main problem is that you'll have to wait nearly until Thanksgiving for this one. Nov. 16." Although it does mention Sherlock Holmes, it makes absolutely no mention of either House or Holmes logically eliminating anything.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. I misread the deductive powers thing. I'm very very sorry. LonelyMarble found a ref to back it up. Again, my mistake, I'm sorry.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source 34 is used to support the statement, "The pilot episode was filmed in Canada", the actual story from the Toronto Sun makes absolutely no reference to any such thing, although it does include the statement on the bin Laden tape (which is also cited to it)
Given that these three misrepresentations are the result of looking at just a few of the offline references, I can only assume that there may be other serious errors with the referencing, and I kindly ask other reviewers to help check the other refs. Cool3 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The main patient in the pilot episode is named Rebecca Adler, after Irene Adler, a character in the first Holmes short story." is sourced to ref 16, which makes absolutely no mention of either Rebecca or Irene Adler, although there are some interesting comments on the House-Wilson/Holmes-Watson dynamic that might be worth including. Cool3 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, took the ref directly from the Pilot FA, with your database access you might be able to find a ref that does confirm this.--Music26/11 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool3 did add a reference to back the Adler statement up, so this is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"House ultimately selects Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), a former plastic surgeon; Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn), a sports medicine specialist; and Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), an internist." This is undoubtedly true, but unsupported by the citation which says only "According to The Hollywood Reporter, Kal Penn, Olivia Wilde and Peter Jacobson will be series regulars for the remainder of this "House" season. " Please supplement with another citation(s) containing the additional information.
Necessary supplements added. DocKino (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 124 refers to a story in the Daily Telegraph as having appeared on page N9. According to my sources, the article never appeared in print, but only the online edition. A link is available here.
Took care of this. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Ref 133, the USA today story is misidentified. The correct name is "Note to 'House' fans : 'Things will never be the same' on the Fox series" (not drama as currently stated). The story also makes no reference to critics being "surprised" by the teams departure. (the story is available in the free preview here, the rest of the material is actually irrelevant under the subheading of "In other TV news"). The Hartford Courant story also doesn't say anyone was surprised. All that it really says is "'House' fans relax. True, the fourth season ended in May with the cantankerous doctor firing his staff or otherwise seeing it leave, followed by an announcement that many new faces would join the cast of the hit show when it returns this fall on Fox." with most of the rest devoted to news on the next season.Cool3 (talk)
And this as well. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for focusing in on this issue. I found a couple more cases in the "Critical reception" subsection. With one exception, I'll now vouch for all the sourcing from that section to the end of the article (that is, at the moment, citations 118 through 199 plus the few specific repeat appearances of citations introduced earlier in the article)--I did a lot of cleaning up of the lower sections in the past few weeks. The one exception is this, currently (20:29 EDT, June 17) citation 145: << "2006–07 primetime wrap". The Hollywood Reporter. Nielsen Business Media. May 25, 2007. Retrieved July 4, 2008. (Subscription required) >>. The link is dead. I don't have any question about the data--it has been replicated in many sites that cloned the data from the Hollywood Reporter--but we do need a new authoritative source, unlesss we can verify the offline publication of this data. DocKino (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the problem of the dead link for the Holly Reporter. The problem was the link in the article was going directly to the login page for subscribers, which was causing a problem. I replaced it with the link to the actual article and then the Hollywood Reporter site redirects you to the login page if you are not a subscriber, which solves the problem. This information is no doubt correct as there are plenty of mirrors and using references that require a subscription are perfectly fine, so I think the problem with this reference is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the reference problems identified by Cool3 have been corrected and resolved. All the rest of the questions and problems brought up by Cool3 have been addressed and (I think) resolved. The only thing left to do would be a final confirmation that all the references are correct. DocKino has already done this for a good chunk of the references. As it is right now, it appears all issues on this FAC page have been resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone conducted such a check yet? It appears that there are only about 100 left to verify, which while it might be a bit painstaking shouldn't take too long. Once someone is ready to vouch for those, I'm prepared to support. Cool3 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will go through and check all the online sources for the references in the first part of the article that DocKino hasn't checked. I don't have immediate access to offline sources right now so I can't check those. You appear to have checked most of those already. If there are any others you could check that would be helpful. I can vouch for the two citations that reference the season 1 DVD. I have the DVD and have verified the information being referenced is mentioned and is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have verified all of the offline refs except for those to books, and am prepared to vouch for them. Cool3 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can now vouch for all the references from the production section except for the last subsection Opening sequence (so currently I have checked references 1 - 62). I have to go for awhile, I only have 4 problems from my check, and there is only 1 reference I wasn't able to access at all: LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the reference for this sentence backs it up: The resemblance is evident in House's reliance on psychology in problem-solving, even where it might not seem obviously applicable, and his reluctance to accept cases he finds uninteresting.[9] The first part about psychology even when it is not obvious may be supported by this: "EVERYBODY LIES - House's mantra, based on his cynical yet usually accurate assumption that patients are always hiding something. Like the case of the lady with African sleeping sickness who swore she'd never been to Africa...while neglecting to mention she was cheating on her husband with someone who had been there." The other part isn't directly said but inferred, plus the fact that he only accepts cases he finds interesting doesn't really need a reference anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference at the end of the sentence for House not accepting cases he finds uninteresting. I also think the other reference backs up the psychology mention in the first part of the sentence, as it gives a good example of when a person's secrets are not always obvious. So this question is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference I can't vouch for is the one after this line in the casting section: Leonard said that he had some familiarity with the medical profession, because his father-in-law was a doctor. (currently reference 41) The link wouldn't load in my browser, maybe someone else can have more success, that sentence can easily just be deleted if it can't be verified. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've listened to the interview (the link takes you to an audio file). It's true that his father in law is a doctor, but the interview doesn't really back up what the article says. Here's the quote as best I can transcribe it: "But yea the writing is remarkable; my father in law is a doctor and he's really ... he said you know you guys you know ...we cheat on the time a little bit like when the medicine kicks in or how quickly someone gets better but the medicine and what's wrong with people and the diagnoses are all totally researched and backed up. It's totally remarkable what the writers come up with." The interview also has a few tidbits on the nurse who's there when they film that might be worth including: "Once we're on the set we have a nurse there named Bobbin(?) believe it or not who's great and she you know so far as when someone has to be intubated or given a shot or just stupid stuff she'll help us because we're all idiot actors we don't know what we're doing." (to get to where both of these are said skip to about 2/3 of the way through the interview). Cool3 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the sentence about familiarity, given that it is weakly supported at best and not all that pertinent.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The info regarding Hugh's salary was a bit messed up. The reference to support the $100,000 per episode didn't quite do it because the figure was actually in pounds. I reworded the sentences so everything regarding this is resolved, but if anyone wants to research his past salaries some more go for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The locations section of the filming section was a bit messed up. The reference for the line stating shots of UCLA and USC are used for exterior shots of PPTH was not sufficient. The reference was only of one instance that the show shot at USC, I changed the wording to reflect this. The info right now is backed by the references, the only thing that could be done is add in a reference about the exterior shots of PPTH because that is unreferenced at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added in a reference for the PPTH aerial shots and also added in the info that the series' setting was because Singer's hometown is Princeton. So everything in this section is referenced and the refences check out. This paragraph has the potential for expansion but as it is now it's fine. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way backwards, I can now vouch for all the citations from "Recurring characters" on down (104–203, at the moment). However, every single one of the sources cited for the occupations of the four eliminated audition finalists was irrelevant and had to be cut. An existing source gives Volakis's occupation, but I couldn't find anything up-to-standard online for Brennan, Cole, or Dobson. If we want to list their occupations, it looks like we'll have to give the appropriate episode cites. Is someone equipped to do that? DocKino (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, looks like we're almost there. As for the occupations, this article form USA Today should be moderately helpful. It confirms Brennan as an epidemiologist. As for Dobson it says "In the last episode, he revealed he is not a physician but had learned by working for 30 years at a medical school," which probably isn't quite good enough and should be supplemented (though it does at least tell us where to look). Unfortunately, it has nothing on Cole's specialty. Cool3 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking up on the Brennan info in the source. I provided an episode cite for Dobson--his background as a medical school admissions officer is unambiguously stated in the show. No good evidence has been found for the claim that Cole is a geneticist. LonelyMarble did a transcript search (as did I) and there is simply no in-universe indication that this is true. No Fox press release, official Fox online statement, or professionally published article supports the claim either. As a result, the "geneticist" claim has been cut. Referencing work now complete for citations 104 on down. DocKino (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Looks like the only references not double-checked and verified are references 63-103, only 40 more. I intend to do this sometime tomorrow as I should have a good chunk of time to devote to it. Anyone is free to start checking the references left in the meantime, but I intend to finish what's left of the references tomorrow when I have more time and am not as tired as I am right now. This was good that Cool3 brought this issue up. There weren't that many problems but there were enough mistakes and other problems that the article continues to really improve. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just tackled "Main characters" (so now covering citations 85 on down). I can vouch for everything except one claim and the content of two refs:
The claim: "Dr. James Wilson...is the head of the Department of Oncology." There's lots of evidence that he's an oncologist, but I haven't been able to pin down a source for the claim that he's "the head of the Department of Oncology."
Wilson is definitely the department head like House. I'll find an episode site for this. I had also noticed Cameron's job description earlier and thought it was possibly a little off because I remember her being described as the "senior attending physician". I think however the way it works is there are a couple senior attendings in the ER and then one of those seniors is also the head. So I think the way you did it with the extra note is the best way. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an episode cite for Wilson, 1x07. Cuddy specifically calls House and Wilson "department heads". Wilson being the department head is seen in a lot of episodes, this episode may be the first time in the series it's clearly spelled out though. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The refs: The two offline ones: <<Kochman, David (August 8, 2007). "House The nasty docs tests his new victims...er, staffers". TV Guide. pp. 41–42.>> (currently #95) and <<"Spoiler Alert: House Selects Three Regulars". Virginian-Pilot. October 7, 2007. p. E2.>> (currently #99). DocKino (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for those two refs.--Music26/11 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just gone through the Series overview section and I can vouch for all the references and information there being correct. The only thing is an offline reference to Playboy is cited 4 times and an offline reference to the book by Paul Challen is cited 5 times. The information cited by the offline references is just basic in-universe plot info. But can anyone vouch for the offline references in this section? If so, this section is all set. Also, is there anyone that can vouch for all the references to the Challen book that appear throughout the article? LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've double-checked almost all the Challen refs via Google Book Search. I'm happy to give them all another pass for final verification. DocKino (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Challen refs checked and appropriate edits made.
One last issue, I have. LonelyMarble, great job expanding and refining the "Opening sequence" subsection. But it now strikes me as weird that we describe the images accompanying the names of four of the six featured actors, but not that of the lead. We need to make clear how Laurie's name is presented. Given that we would then be describing the presentation of six of the seven names featured in the sequence, it would seem odd to omit only Leonard. What do you think about completing the description by mentioning both of them? DocKino (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific job, LM. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was already working on doing just that before you made the comment here (hence how I added it in 4 minutes later). So we were thinking along the same lines. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for the playboy ref.--Music26/11 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Music2611's "vouch" for this ref is worthless, a remarkable thing at this point in the process. I tracked down the Playboy interview online--of the three specific claims it has been cited for, it does not support a single one. There is zero discussion of the "pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptom"; there is zero suggestion that the team's attempted treatments "often fail until the patient's condition is critical"; there is zero discussion of House's clinic duty, let alone that his "grudging fulfillment of this duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. And yet it was "vouched" for. Unbelievable. Please tell us why we should put any stock in the vouching for the TV Guide and Virginian-Pilot refs above.
Luckily, I believe all of the claims relating to sources M2611 has "vouched for" can be covered with other sources. LM, you may be better equipped to do that than I am right now. I'm cutting the Playboy refs and waiting for...what would I trust?...faxes of the other two refs, which appear in the "Main characters" section. This article is in very, very strong shape now--it's unfortunate that we still have to contend with this last...situation. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article online too, however, I own that particular playboy (yes, you can laugh at me for it but that's not the point right now), the printed version contains a "regular house episode", I can scan it if you want (although then I have to find out how the damn machine works). Anyhow, the other two sources can be traced back here (registration required) and here [10]/[11].--Music26/11 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other two refs turned out not to be necessary, and referring to the actual episodes actually improved the text of the "Main characters" section. As for the Playboy, maybe we can forego the scan. Can you explain in more detail what you mean when you say it contains a "regular house episode"? And could you give us the quotations upon which the three claims in question are based:
Most episodes revolve around the diagnosis of a primary patient and start with a pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptoms.
A reference explaining how the "cold open" works to back this sentence up is still needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an online reference to support this sentence. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
attempts [to diagnose and treat the patient's illness] often fail until the patient's condition is critical.
Found an online reference to back this, says they often almost kill the patient. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His grudging fulfillment of this [walk-in clinic] duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. [I did find support in Challen for this, but the phrasing doesn't make absolutely clear that it is a recurring subplot, so a little more support would be helpful].
Same online reference makes it clear this is a "weekly comedic subplot". LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Music2611, I apologize for overreacting. I should have checked with you to see if there was material in the print version--which, after all, is what you cited--that didn't appear in the online version.) DocKino (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've all been working really hard on this article, and looks like we finally may be pretty much "done". I could use a break to read that particular Playboy (just for Hugh Laurie's interview of course). LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 3 offline references in the series overview section (currently 74, 75, 78). 74 and 75 are newspapers and Cool3 has said he can vouch for all the offline references except the books. 78 is a book though. Any verification of this reference? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book's text is accessible on Amazon. I did a word search on "clinic" and looked through the pages where it appeared. While the book (Leah Wilson, House Unauthorized) was useful on a few points, I did not find support for the passage for which it was being cited: "During clinic duty, House confounds patients with unwelcome observations into their personal lives, eccentric prescriptions, and unorthodox treatments. However, after seeming to be inattentive to their complaints, he regularly impresses them with rapid and accurate diagnoses." Maybe you might give it a look over to see if you can find sufficient evidence for that...or we may need to seek out another source...or, of course, reword or trim the passage. DocKino (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in these two sentences can be cited from the pilot episode. I can think of a bunch of examples in other early episodes as well, but I think a pilot cite is good enough. Plus for the second sentence I think I found a pretty good reference showing how he is able to make rapid and accurate diagnoses (while not actually even doing that much). Are there are any other reference problems, I think we may have finally finished. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple book refs to the surrounding passages, as well. Yes, I believe the entire article is properly and comprehensively ref'ed now. DocKino (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a die-hard fan of the show, I look forward to supporting once these are addressed :). Cool3 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image has been replaced.--Music26/11 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how File:HouseCastSeason1.jpg adds much to the article. Two of the characters essentially look exactly the same in their free images, and the rest of the characters have their own articles. Considering there is little in the summaries about their appearance, costumes, et al that would warrant the images as subject of commentary, I'd remove the image (basically, analogous to image concerns in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter.)
Sorry but I'm not going over this again, the previous FAc was dominated by this discussion and we eventually had more people supporting than opposing the image. If you would like to start this discussion again, please take it elsewhere, else we would have the same problem all over again.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fuchs is correct that images of persons should not be flipped to meet a placement/facing guideline (or, really, for any other reason).
As Music points out, the cast photo has been extensively discussed, and a final image selected that best serves our readers within the letter and the intention of our image policy. The ability to visualize the core cast of a TV series is essential information about the show, and goes to the heart of criterion 1b. The fact that there are separate articles on the characters is irrelevant—readers should not be obliged to move around to multiple articles to acquire this basic information about the show in question. House's cane is also referred to multiple times in the article—it and his posture relevant to it constitute significant visual information. Furthermore, the information I have added to the Filming style underscores the visual importance of Laurie's height. While I suppose a police-style lineup image might be ideal, the present image does explicate Laurie's stature relative to the rest of the cast, even with his stoop.—DCGeist (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the fair use rationale needs to be expanded; right now it reads as "this illustrates something", which is always a poor reason for anything without elaboration. Also, that reminds me, we need the original location of the image; linking to the raw .jpg is nice, but for source the location it appears is more important. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. I'll deal with the rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to point out that the image shows House's lack of a white coat compared to the other doctors, which is somewhat mentioned in the conception section. When the reader gets to the characters section they'll see a result of that conversation mentioned. DCGeist did a nice job with the fair-use rationale. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recropped the image of Leonard without improperly flipping it; uploaded the new crop to Commons; and brought the properly oriented crop into the article.—DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this screws up your work, but I replaced the image with an image of Edelstein. I think it fits better.--Music26/11 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Lonely Marble has substituted a still further improved (and properly oriented) crop.—DCGeist (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Princeton Frist Campus Center back.jpg. The file says it was released under the CC-BY-3.0 license by the author, but the author is not the uploader. The file was uploaded to Commons by Commons user Kyro, but is credited to Jterrace here on en, and there's no indication on the description page that he actually has confirmed the license of the image. While there's about a 99.9% chance that everything is perfectly fine here, I think that in an FA we should have confirmation from Jterrace that he indeed took the picture and has agreed to license it in this fashion. Although Jterrace does not seem to be too active, he has the EMail use function enabled, so that's probably the best way for someone to get in touch with him. Cool3 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Commons user Kyro should be contacted about this, he might know Jterrace personally. He seems to be a trusted and established user on Commons. If you think the licensing needs verification this should be brought up on Commons as that site is the one hosting the image and Commons does not host non-free images. If you brought this article up for deletion on Commons I suspect it would kept either by resolving the issue or on good faith of user Kyro. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I solved the issue. If you look at the history of revisions to the Commons page for the image you can see that the image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and then deleted after it was moved to Commons. See the original version of the page: [12]. Jterrace I'm assuming uploaded the image to Wikipedia. This can easily be confirmed by an admin by seeing the record of the deleted Wikipedia page for the image or a record of Jterrace's contributions. Jterrace originally posted the file to the Frist Campus Center Wikipedia page: [13]. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not bringing this up, but the original copy (en.wp) was uploaded by JTerrace, which is why I didn't bring the issue up. Unfortunately bot migrations to commons often screw up the original info. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone really against removing this image. I mean it doesn't really add anything to the article. If the decision is made this image could be placed in the article instead, since filming also takes place there.--Music26/11 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against removing. The shot of Frist Campus Center for the hospital is shown in pretty much every episode and usually more than once. I don't know why you would want to remove a free image of PPTH and substitute it for an image of a building that is only going to be used for season 6. An aerial shot of the campus center would be the most ideal image but I think this free one is still good; perhaps the caption should be more clear that this is what PPTH looks like. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, does this mean that the above discussion is solved? Great work on the lead thing below by the way.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem was the image says the author is Jterrace but the user who uploaded it to Commons is Kyro. The image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia by Jterrace, so the original uploader and author are the same. This information just got a little lost when the image was transferred to Commons. David Fuchs is an admin so he can see the deleted records and he confirmed this. So everything is fine with this image, the license is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak. Maybe good enough to be a Featured Article but I think it could be better. Intro too long. Please see comments on the House talk page for more details. (I'll elaborate later, I've written this comment more than once, previewed it, checked details but not actually submitted it. -- Horkana (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly address my concerns with more brevity than I did on the talk page: Sherlock Holmes references are interesting but it is a comparison best explained in the main article, the mention in the lead is too long. The production details about who came up with what aspects of the show are interesting but the introduction should not go into detail behond mentioning David Shore who is listed in the credits as the producer. House is critically acclaimed and highly rated, no doubts there but isn't one example enough for the introduction if an example even needs to be provided in the lead. -- Horkana (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretations of WP:Lead section and WP:Article length are not correct. First of all, the most important thing to evaluate in regards to article length is readable prose. That article size number that you see in the history page or when you edit a page does not mean much because it includes all the references and other things that are not a part of readable prose. The current readable prose size of this article is about ~40 KB (read WP:Article length for a definition of readable prose). The guideline at WP:Article length states:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
The most important thing to note here is that the only thing that matters is readable prose and this article's readable prose size is about 40 KB, therefore the length of this article is pretty much perfect and is perfectly within limits to expand with more prose. The current total article size of House right now is 109 KB, but that number does not really matter. This article has almost 200 references, that is why the total article size is so large. Finally, the guideline at WP:Lead section states that an article with >32 KB of readable prose should have a lead section of 3 to 4 paragraphs. This article has 3 paragraphs that summarize all the major points of the article very well. The lead is a perfect length. I suggest you look at other featured articles to get an idea of how long leads should be, and also keep in mind that the most important thing when evaluating an article's size is readable prose. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a more accurate assessment of readable prose size and I'd say the current number is 37 KB. So more expansion with any new useful information, or for sections that seem a little short, or in the future for more information about the new seasons, is perfectly fine. The readable prose size is not that large. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been hasty about the article length, admittedly there is a lot to cover. However the introduction could keep it short and sweet and stick to introducing the article and leave the rest to be explained later. You interpret a 3-4 paragraph length introduction like a target rather than an upper limit, I disagree. There is a temptation to write a long "summary" as the introduction. The fact the writers have made the deliberate to connections between House and Holmes can be made in a single short sentence, with the examples and references provided in the article. Again the fact that House has been critically praised can be expressed succinctly. Many editors seem okay with having articles with introductions the size of a small article, the featured articles I've seen seem to back that up. I would point you to The West Wing as an example of a good introduction and it is for a television series that ran longer then house and could potentially have a much longer introduction (but it doesn't need more to just introduce the article). There are many editors in love with their own words and who do not want to keep introductions short, even going forcing thing to grouping together things which don't belong in order to keep the paragraph count down. In the House article for example the not about House having run for 5 seasons and being renewed for a 6th is logically separate from the text before it and would benefit from being spaced further apart and not stuck so much on the proceeding text. It's only a weak oppose, this article will be no less sprawling than the many other articles which have been deemed adequate for featured article status. -- Horkana (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture to guess if the lead was shortened to the length you want there would be many editors who would not support it as a featured article until the lead was expanded. The lead of this article is perfectly within featured article criteria and Wikipedia guidelines. The lead is not just an "introduction". It introduces the article by summarizing all the major points of the article so that the lead can stand alone on its own, so readers will have a basic knowledge of the topic. That is why the length of the lead directly depends on the length of the article. This article is sufficiently long enough to warrant a lead of the length it currently has. Regarding The West Wing, it is not a featured article and its lead is not even that well organized. Most people would probably say The West Wing's lead should even be expanded a bit. You either have an unusual interpretation of WP:Lead section or you are not reading that guideline carefully enough. If you simply have a different opinion and interpretation, there's not much else to say here. You have the right to oppose, but I don't know what the point of your oppose is except that you disagree with core Wikipedia style guidelines, which is a problem you should take up elsewhere, not here. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To further address specific things you mentioned, Sherlock Holmes comparisons is mentioned because there is a full long section on the comparison. Also the Holmes mention doubles in usefulness because it also lets the reader know some key facts about the character of House. The fact that House has been critically praised is currently expressed succinctly, the reception paragraph in The West Wing is longer than this article's. Finally the mention of the show running for 5 seasons does not need its own paragraph and one sentence paragraphs are strongly discouraged for good reason. The sentence flows fine in that paragraph as the show's ratings specific to its seasons is mentioned earlier. If there is a big section about a topic in an article, it is usually warranted a sentence in the lead. That is how lead sections work. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Amazing work. The episode refs don't seem to have directors in it, which I would include, as well, TIME magazine recently reported House as being the most popular TV show due to it's ratings, which I don't see mentioned. Other than that, very good. The Flash{talk} 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the directors for all the episode references, so that is done. As for being the most popular TV show, it is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and in the Distribution section, that House was the most-watched program of 2008 in the world. House's specific ratings in the U.S. has its own subsection, and ratings in other countries are included in the Distribution section. So I'm not exactly sure what information you think is missing, but if you have a link to the Time magazine article you are referring to, any relevant information from it can be incorporated. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flash appears to be referring to the "Pop Chart" in the current issue of Time. It's a compendium of pop culture factoids with one-liner joking commentary; the two sentences on House don't convey any worthwhile information that isn't already better articulated and sourced in our article. It's nothing that needs to be cited. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great job LonelyMarble, DocKino and Music, and everyone else who contributed. With the resolution of the referencing problems, I think this is there. Cool3 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 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.
