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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [1].

Glee (season 1)[edit]

Glee (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CycloneGU (talk), Frickative (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am co-nominating this for featured list with Frickative because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, has undergone a recent peer review, and was written based on other featured lists such as Lost (season 1) and 30 Rock (season 1). We've worked hard on this and hope it qualifies to be among the best. We will both be watching this and addressing any concerns in the process. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (per nom). CycloneGU (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as co-nominator). The article has undergone thorough editing over the past week to ensure it is up to the necessary standard, and I believe that it is of comparable quality to other featured lists on television seasons. Frickative 03:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, I've crossed mine. I've seen others do it before, so I thought it was customary. CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops...I will check that. CycloneGU (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I think the second half was supposed to originally have 12, but that never got checked. CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note My previous comments can be found at the talk page of this nomination Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that's why I didn't go and AFD it. When the second season airs and if it gets as much coverage as the first, it's likely that season pages will be valid as the series page gives a summary overview of both seasons and everything else. I think you're wrong though, that "this is what the article should look like in a few months". There is so much valuable detail in that series page that is missing here, and when the series page is developed and expanded over the course of the second season, it will likely disappear. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't actually compared to the articles, and was just speaking in general. If you're talking about FA vs FL season pages, I prefer the FA versions. I think it's kinda silly you can't have a fat production section and then nom for either FA or FL, but whatev. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some real good work on this page during this nomination. Most of my concerns are met now. I believe the page has got the right amount of information now, and it no longer serves as a summary of Glee (TV series) (which now correctly serves as an overview of the entire series).

The only thing now is to think about whether this still qualifies as FL over FA. Previously it did. There was the episode list, a cast list, a crew list, a list of DVD info, a list of awards and nominations. The only thing that really wasn't a list was the reception part. Now though, it seems to me to be more of an article with a list. There's a lot more prose and detail in the production section. There's more info in the character section, so it is now less of a cast list in prose form. The award section is still listy, but they usually are. I don't mean to say that it shouldn't be listed at FLC any more, just that it could be listed at FAC and its something to consider. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends whether you regard FAC higher than FLC, or whether you think our readers do, and if you want to have the chance of it appearing on the main page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree Matt, primarily on the basis of how the info is presented. The "cast" section is really just a list of who appeared on the show, and not really a prose of casting information about selecting actors, how those actors characterized their roles, etc. When you look at WP:MOSTV, the article would get caught up in a debate on comprehensiveness. The production section is largely a broadcast history and less a production history. It does do well with the info on musical information, but there is other stuff going on with the show (storylines, character development), which are largely absent. Some of the music in "Production" also seems more relevant to the "Music" section under "Reception". Because it talks about the release of 5 CDs, which has nothing to do with the production of a show. Given that this show is about singing and dancing, and the production section doesn't cover the latter, it wouldn't meet the FAC criteria. I think if the production section was more developed and spent more time talking about actual production of episodes and not broadcast history and the release of records, it probably would be a good candidate for FA (over FL) because the rest of the page is great. It's just, when I read the "Production" section....if I removed the info that isn't really production, that section would probably only have the 3rd and 4th paragraphs left, with everything else needing to be either placed somewhere else, or dropped entirely (i.e. the first paragraph is redundant to the episode table because you're just listing people who wrote and directed episode...which the table does already...there's no context as to why that was important enough to be separated on its own).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, both of you :) Matthew, I'm really glad you feel that most of your concerns have been addressed, and I'll try and fix up the home media section asap. Re: FL vs. FA - I've given the current season FAs a careful read through, and my gut feeling is similar to Bignole's comments. I think this article would fall down on broadness of coverage because of the "Production" section. The existing FAs have very detailed sections on "Writing", "Filming" (and "Effects" in the case of the Smallville/Supernatural articles), and while there are multiple good sources available on the "Music" element of Glee, I believe the former two sections are sparse on coverage at the present time. My instinct is to continue with the article at FLC at present, and if, in the future, there is information available with which the "Production" section can be expanded, perhaps try for FA at a later date. Frickative 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to have a slight difference in opinion here. I agree that the Production section is our biggest obstacle here. The thing is we don't have good sources regarding the filming of Glee; even a search for "filming in Glee season 1" brings up "They started filming Season 2!" and other similar results (I also tried "conception of glee"), and nothing about production of the show itself. I did find a fantastic picture of Britney Spears playing Maude on the show, however (too bad it's a blog). The writers, I think, tend to talk more about the music and discussions of future plots and twists, but there is no detail on a lot of the normal production information you'd expect in these articles. My point is that just because we don't have any real information on things that normally would be in a television season article shouldn't detract from whether the article is well-written. If the information isn't available, we can't say it, and a section will appear bland in comparison. We've still provided all of the information we DO have, even if it is music; once again, music is a heavy element of the show's production more than anything else. CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you have to show that the information isn't available. Given that a simple Google search cannot prove a negative, you'd need someone with a LexisNexis account to be able to search a much broader searching field. Plus, I still think the lack of info on choregraphy and other dance elements is a big deficiency. The show is about character development, singing, and dancing. You got the music covered, but nothing else. Now, the individual episode pages seem to have more true production info, but you cannot duplicate what's there to this page because it would mean that those pages are unnecessary. That's the Catch-22. You can fill this page out more by putting more info on individual episodes here, but then that would negate the need for those individual episode pages because they would otherwise create the same problem that Matt brought up originally---multiple pages saying the exact same thing. The difference between this page and other FL seasons with the few FA season pages we have is that those "article" pages don't typically have more than a couple episode articles. The rest of the episode info is on those season pages. You'd have a hard time meeting criteria for comrehensiveness when you have 22 episodes to cover on this page and you don't really cover any.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point noted. But we can't simply move the information to the Season 1 article from the episode articles because then we'd be having a detrimental effect on the episode articles. We probably could add some information on special locations for filming (such as in April when they filmed the finale to an audience of Gleeks from Twitter and Facebook), but there isn't a lot we can put in without simply copying the other articles. How much coverage would be needed to make it comprehensive? CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the page to Smallville, Supernatural, and Parks and Recreation (which are the only 3 series I know of that have "articles" for season pages). My fear is that, it sets a principle that "comprehensive" doesn't actually mean comprehensive in the future. If the info is on the episode pages, that's perfectly fine. This page does not need to be FA, it can be FL (though some things probably need to be eliminated because of redundancy in this article alone, let alone across multiple articles). When you look at this production section, it's largely non-existent. Only two paragraphs really talk about any production related information, and they aren't really lengthy paragraphs at that. It's just missing a lot for coverage. There isn't truly a lot of info on the music for a 22 episode series, nothing on any dance routines, and for a show that deals a lot with human drama there's really nothing as far as that goes either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am replying late to this. I do agree that this page lacks information on dance routines, production, and so on. You refer to this as the Catch-22, and I fully agree; we can put that information here, but it then could make one or more episode pages unnecessary. Perhaps we can cover information on some of the more memorable routines, for example, and maximum of one per episode, but it would clutter the page unnecessarily to have 22 dance routine discussions on the article, so that is out. Maybe two or three of the more memorable ones could be used, and this would tie into production, but the question is which ones we can cover best in the article to give the detail that would meet the criteria.
On another note, I have seen two opinions from other editors off of this page supporting this article as a potential FAC, not just an FLC. Dabomb87 and DocKino‎ have both made such comments (the former comparing it to the first time I took it to FAC without a peer review), and while I don't intend to copy their comments to this FLC or start long discussions on their talk pages, it does show one of the great things about a community such as Wikipedia in having a great group of diverse people with diverse opinions, and we all have the same goal of making this such a great wealth of information for free for everyone. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think just a couple of routines wouldn't be enough, because a couple of routines can be covered in a couple of sentences and the section is lacking by more than just a couple of sentences. Personally, I think given what appears to be a huge critical response for each episode (the reception sections are rather fleshed out compared to most episode articles) I wouldn't try and trim any episodes. You have three options when it comes to the production info. You can either remove it from certain/most episode pages and place it here, which would flesh out this page closer to comprehensiveness; or you can copy and paste leaving it on both. If it's on both, then it makes it redundant on one of the pages and this page would most likely be deemed the unnecessary one given the strong critical reception each episode gets. As such, the third option is to not change anything and leave this page as a list. I'm not sure why there is a push to force this page to be an article when it doesn't seem to naturally flow in that category. There is nothing wrong with it being a list (which is actually the most common form for season pages, especially when episodes are so well discussed in the media). I think, unless there is significant coverage on production info for the season that isn't directed at specific episodes (e.g., see Smallville (season 9) or Smallville (season 10) to see how info can be established on a more general scale in significant depth), then I wouldn't try and create bigger problems with multiple pages by trying to pick and choose what to snatch from episode pages and then either be left with diminished episode pages or redundant material (which was an issue this page had at the start of this FLC). I think it fits the "list" category better right now (though it certainly has a strong reception section than any season list or article), which is what I support for this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying anything is wrong with being an FL over an FA. I'm just saying that the article is on a fence. My requests of the editors in question were to simply give a straight opinion without review on which category it better fits, and I linked to them for that reason only to include them since another comment appears below this string here. My main thing to take away is that if some people think it fits FA, then it likely fits FL as well in their opinion.
As for why I'm coming up with ideas to get more production info in, it's only for completeness purposes. If you think having more info on musical numbers would fit the article/list well, then we should try to include it. With or without it, if it doesn't still qualify for FA, then we still have a very good FL candidate here and I think we'll both be proud of that, pass or fail (and for me, my first that I've helped spruce up, even if only as a minor contributor). =) We've been debating running the page for FA again, but we'll let this run its course first and determine the best action after that, pass or fail. CycloneGU (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose
I know it is almost customary, but I really do question the value of the DVD box image under NFCC 8. The purpose of use- given as "To show show the cover for public interest and/or it's content." is extremely weak.
I've removed the image. You're right, the FUR was no good, and unable to come up with anything stronger (I really can't think of a compelling reason it would be necessary) I nixed it entirely. There's already a free image of two of the cover stars beside "Cast", and I suppose we could add the title card in the ibox if an image there is necessary, but I don't think it would be of any particular value. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The executive producers were series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, and Dante Di Loreto," Remove one of those ands.
I was trying to denote the fact that Murphy and Falchuk are the series creators and Di Loreto isn't, but yes, the end result was unnecessarily awkward. I've re-worded it as "The executive producers were Dante Di Loreto and series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk'. Any better? Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that myself, good point before the change. I thought it looked a little odd, too, but never got back to that. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to a scheduling conflict with American Idol, the fourteenth episode, "Hell-O", was pushed back to 9:30 pm, before moving back to the earlier timeslot for the remaining episodes." Isn't that a bit trivial for a season article?
Agreed and removed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Virtually every song on the five albums has been released as singles with exception to bonus tracks and the entirety of Journey to Regionals, which had no singles." Just try that sentence again.
This one is my fault. I'll fix this in the morning or so, I have only now seen this review and I have had a long day, am half asleep, and not on my best thinking terms. If I think of something good, I'll fix it tonite. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? "Journey to Regionals did not release any official singles, while the remaining four albums were fully released as singles." Currently in article. CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Matthewedwards, figuring I may eventually watch this show, I skipped the Episodes section entirely.
The Cast section, first paragraph. Any words besides "played" and "portrayed", which are both used many times would be nice.
How about using brackets? i.e. "Glee is a series where William Schuester (Matthew Morrison) teaches a group of misfit students..." Otherwise, I'll find some synonyms. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"played Santana Lopez and Brittany," Commas. We need more commas. Actually, that entire sentence could do with some work.
3 paragraphs in a row starting with "The season" is rather jarring
Decided to fix this while doing the item below. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the entire Cast section is prone to run-on sentences, and so many citations it is almost unreadable. Any chance those citations would be fine at the ends of sentences?
Fixing this now. I like putting all the citations at the end. I don't see an issue with doing it this way. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if you prefer them at the end of the relevant sentence instead of in the middle. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and the UK[90][88] and" footnotes in order, please
Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"ARIA and CRIA,[102][98] an" Again
Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and gold by the BPI and RIAA.[99][91]" Ditto.
Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to formally define RIAA- by putting it in parenthesis next to the expansion- to use it.
Oops, total oversight. Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However, as Scott Collins for the Los Angeles Times noted, the other major networks besides Fox all opened the evening by airing a speech by President Barack Obama, disrupting regular viewing patterns" You're attributing something to someone, the citation must be repeated before the sentence
Done. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The following eight episodes averaged 6.63–7.65 million viewers," How can you "average" a range? Averages are by definition a single number.
Will fix this shortly. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm holding off on that ATM until Frickative checks this. I think she meant one show averaged 6.63 million viewers over the hour, and the highest averaged 7.65 million over the hour. The wording isn't clear, however, so this does need some clarification. I'll let her look at this. CycloneGU (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this entire ratings section needs a chop; almost all this data is in the table.
Fixed the first point, but I agree no need to say something twice, so it may be removed shortly upon study. May render above point pointless. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General refs need access dates.
Done. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1, 12, 61, 75, 82 need locations
Done. Frickative 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 11, 38, 139 needs the work
Done. 11 and 139 had two publisher parameters, silly mistake. Frickative 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 12, 15, 16, 49, 58, 59, 61, 75, 76, 86, 114 need publisher
What makes Refs 55 and 56 reliable?
I think these were left over from the early days of the show, when coverage of the supporting cast was sparse. I've replaced them both with a ref to a New York magazine interview. Frickative 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 101 and 106 won't work in a year and a half. Plan now.
I'm late to the party, but I show 101 as the AllMusic page (which should work years from now), and 106 is tvbythenumbers.com which I know nothing about in terms of longevity. I had a problem with 102 (a Billboard article), however. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FOLLOWUP: I've now seen that the refs in question are Scottish charts or such. I still had a problem with 102 tho. CycloneGU (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added archiveurls for both. Billboard has been up and down for the past few weeks, so I've added archiveurls for the six Billboard refs as well. Frickative 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until the DVD image is removed or a much, much better rationale written, I must oppose. Courcelles 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, but do you oppose every film article up for FA status for having a poster in the infobox? Because there isn't a fair use rationale strong enough for 99% of films to justify that image in the infobox either and that is what the DVD cover equates to in TV since most TV shows don't get posters like films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose anything with NFC whose rationale was as weak as this one's was, yes. Look at File:Richardiii poster original.jpg and compare the FUR there to the one I quoted above. Courcelles 09:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, see you're looking at a FUR. But there's nothing in that article that talks about the poster itself. There is no critical commentary in that film article on the poster, and WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE require critical commentary in the article on any piece of promotional material. So, in theory, Frickative could simply copy and paste the FUR from Richard III's poster and use that to justify the use of the DVD cover art since just as much information in the Glee page is supporting those claims as is in the Richard III article supporting the claim that that poster is something illustrating the style of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I don't know if this was mentioned, but could the production be moved under the episode list? I doubt it would make or break the FA status, just wondering. ChaosMasterChat 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The only reason "Production" leads at the moment is because having "Episodes" first would have left a large whitespace when there was an ibox image. Now the image is out, there's no reason not to shuffle the sections, so I'll change it now. Frickative 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (sorry if they've been covered/discussed above, a little TLDR for me) - just a few that I found on a quick read.
  • I think it's safe to appropriately link pilot in the lead here.
    Fixed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The series is executive produced " series was (you're talking about a specific season, after all), and shouldn't exec prod'ed be hyphenated?
    Fixed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link glee club.
    Fixed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Will's wife Terri" -> "Schuester's wife"?
    I'm confused here. You mean we should change it to just "Schuester's wife"? CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore me! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that metascore (a) referenced and (b) current?
    Just checked the metascore. It's referenced under Reception (ref 71 as I type). We can move the reference to the lead where it's first mentioned, but we're repeating information here. I'll let Frickative decide on this, but I do think moving the reference up is smart here. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ET isn't linked in the lead, it's linked later on.
    Fixed. Should we link it in both places or just in lead? CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".[45][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]" - any reason why you leave all the references to the end of this para (and the next) whereas you don't for the rest of the article?
    This was based on a suggestion from Courcelles that he only referenced to that section. I wasn't sure if this setup is what he meant, or references to the end of each sentence. He didn't like them appearing mid-sentence so frequently in that section, though, hence why I did this; I can always change it to after each sentence instead, which seems more sensible to me than either of the other setups. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The end of each sentence is what I really meant. I think I counted one sentence that was interrupted five times by citations the way it was, which was excessive, but at the end of the paragraph isn't all that useful either. Courcelles 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Cheers. I'll go back to how it looked before and work on it again, but in order to be sure any fixed bits don't get reverted in the process I'll be working between Notepads to figure out where everything goes. CycloneGU (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. Notepads actually got messy at one paragraph because I mixed the two up, so ended up pieceing it together in the site editor in any case with the help of loads of Previews. *LOL* Let me know if this meets your suggestion Courcelles, and Rambling if you're happy with it also. I can fix it up more if needed. CycloneGU (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.*"Australia,[103], Ireland,[88]" spare comma after [103].

  • Fixed. Missed this easy one on my first scan, and that comma might have been my fault in the first place. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seven-discs (DVD) Four-discs (BD)" odd capitalisation after a space. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Also added a comma. Didn't compare that to the other sections, will reread it later after more fixes are made. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just compared. No other instance of this occurs, but I removed the s from "discs" in both cases and reworded slightly. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and several guild awards" what's a "guild award"?
    Could be one of two things: 2009 Writers Guild of America Awards (bookmarking to where Glee is visibly seen on two wins) or 16th Screen Actors Guild Awards held in 2010 (look in infobox to right). I think Frickative combined them here, maybe they should be split up but again, she knows what she was writing and I'll let her address this. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was pretty flimsy wording on my part. The season was nominated for two "Directors Guild of America Awards", two "Writers Guild of America Awards" an "Art Directors Guild Award" and won a "Screen Actors Guild Award", but the wording implies these things are all related in some way. I've changed it entirely to "and 57 other awards" which I think gives better scope on the success of the season. Frickative 15:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More