- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2016 [1].
- Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about ... a short-lived UPN sitcom that revolves around five matchmakers working at a New York City dating agency. The series primarily received media attention for its casting of Shannen Doherty in one of the starring roles, and her later removal at the request of the network prior to filming. It also received attention for its prominent use of a multi-ethnic cast. I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). Thank you in advance for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.
(Also, the article has undergone remarkable improvement since July, well done OP!)—indopug (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Indopug: Thank you for your comments. I have removed all of the accessdates from the archived references to avoid bloating the references. Let me know if there is anything else that needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Originally developed with the working title Wingwoman, Love, Inc." - As both titles are in italics and next to each other this initially makes it sound like the show was to be named "Wingwoman, Love, Inc". Perhaps put commas around 'Wingwoman' like so, or find another fix.
- Good catch, I have revised this sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "It would have marked her first role in a sitcom." I think you can combine this with the previous sentence.
- You can wiki link "idiot savant" and "non sequiturs"
- "which led to some critics accusing the show's writers of reducing the character to an ethnic stereotype" - I only see one critic commenting on this, not "critics". Same issue at "Critics questioned the network's belief that Love, Inc". If there are more sources out there put them in as inline citations.
- Replaced the more vague "critics" with the name of the publication. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "frequently cited as the inferior show" - the two sources in that sentence seem to back the show up as being the inferior of the two, i'm just not sure if two sources counts as "frequently". I'd drop that word myself.
- This isn't necessary to pass FAC, but i'd strongly recommend archiving all of your URLs so the article has the best chance of retaining its status in the future.
- All resources are now archived, except for two that I cannot get archived for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the article. It's very well written. Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Freikorp: Thank you for your review! I have addressed all of your comments and made the appropriate corrections/revisions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do or if there is any other way that the article can be improved. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well done. Freikorp (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, very well done. Just two minor questions:
- Is there any reason the description of Clea in the characters section is significantly shorter than the others? Granted, I've never seen the show, so perhaps she's more of a minor character, but I'd suggest adding a sentence or two if possible.
- Thank you catching this. The show was attempting to go for the ensemble cast and storylines similar to that of Friends, so I think she is intended to be one of the primary characters. I have added two sentences to expand this section. Let me know if this is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are ratings not available for every episode? In my opinion, if only five of the 22 have viewership figures, perhaps you could do away with that column and instead find a season ratings average; if not, don't worry too much about it.
- Unfortunately, I cannot find the ratings for every episode. It was a smaller show on a network that would soon close as part of a merger so I doubt that I can find much more information about the ratings. I partially based the article on Making Waves (TV series), which included a partial set of ratings, but I can remove the ratings if you think it is best. I am open to your suggestions. I have included information about the average viewers per episode, the series average, and some other ratings-related information in the second paragraph of the "Broadcast history" section. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, these are two minor quibbles in an otherwise well-written and great article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bcschneider53: Thank you for your review! I have responded to both of your questions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not an expert in how the ratings numbers should be worked into the chart so perhaps you could ask somebody from WikiProject Television for their advice. Otherwise, prose looks good after being tweaked from others' reviews and everything seems to be in order. Well done and good luck to you! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) "The series was produced by Chase TV, the Littlefield Company, Burg/Koules Television, and Paramount Television, and distributed by UPN in its original run and later by LivingTV and Nelonen in the United Kingdom and Finland respectively" - this sentence seems a bit too long to read comfortably. I would recommend splitting it into two: The series was produced by Chase TV, the Littlefield Company, Burg/Koules Television, and Paramount Television. It was distributed by UPN in its original run and later by LivingTV and Nelonen in the United Kingdom and Finland respectively
- "Love, Inc. was originally developed as a vehicle and sitcom debut" - link star vehicle
- "The series was set in New York, but filming took place at Paramount Studios in Hollywood, Los Angeles and California" - I understand this, but I can see how people are going to get confused with this as Hollywood is in Los Angeles, and that in itself is in California! It sounds like something when you would say "Chicago, Illinois" etc. Is the series set in other parts in Los Angeles and California? If so, how about Hollywood, Los Angeles, and other locations in California. Feel free this ignore though if you think it's best
- Fixed. Thank you for catching this. I agree with your comment, and have added "other locations in California". Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "it was cancelled following UPN's merger" - 'canceled' is American spelling, if you want to stay consistent with that
- Oops, I don't know how that happened. Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "UPN Entertainment president cited the rationale behind Doherty's departure" - shouldn't this be "UPN Entertainment's president"?
- "The show, as well as a majority of UPN's programs, were officially cancelled" - 'canceled' again
- 'Cancelled' is spelled with two 'l's twice in the last paragraph of the Broadcast history section, but really feel free to ignore these!
- "Metacritic, which uses a weighted average" - Metacritic is an aggregator, so I would rephrase the following sentence to: assigned a score of 28 out of 100 based on aggregate of 17 reviews
That's all I could find during my read through of this. Amazing work! It is well written, comprehensive and all of the sources check out fine. Once all of the above are clarified then I'll be happy to support. JAGUAR 19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jaguar:Thank you for your review! I have addressed your comments. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Sorry for the late reply, I did get the notification but I can't remember what I was doing this morning. I'm happy that this article meets every aspect of the FA criteria, so I'll lend my support. Amazing work on this! JAGUAR 23:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help and your kind words! And no worries, I know that feeling all too well lol Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too familiar with TV series project but there is something that's bothering me.
- How do you source directors and other staff members? May be a silly question though. Through the DVD? I mean just in case the staff member is debated.
- I think that the directors and other staff members for the show are sourced directly from the show itself (using the credits from the episodes as a primary source). Since not all shows are released on DVD (for instance, this show was never released on DVD as it was not that popular), I think the episodes themselves are used as the primary sources. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the "The title for each episode references a popular sitcom.[2]" necessary? Seems a bit trivial unless you can dig a bit further.
- Agreed. I have removed this note. I originally put it here during my initial expansion of the article as a reminder to dig further into it, but I have found nothing much of note. I agree that it is too trivial, and have taken it out. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping me when you want to contact me. I'm pretty sure it can be made FA though. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments. I completely forgot to remove the episode references comment so thank you for the catch. I will prove my review for your FAC of Tidus sometime before the end of the day. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Now, I support this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
- File:LoveIncIntertitle.png: Non-free image, series logo. Seems like all facets of WP:NFCC appear to be satisfied. Image used in the infobox to aid identification of the work.
- File:Shannen Doherty.jpg: Free image on Commons. It is cropped from a Flickr file, probably that's why it lacks an EXIF - the Flickr file has a free license and an EXIF. The images on the Flickr stream seem to have a varied provenance, so it seems to me. It shows an individual involved in the production process, which is discussed in the section.
- File:Busy Philipps at TCA 2010.jpg: Free image on Commons, comes from a Flickr file that is certified as free by the bot. Good EXIF, all uploads of the Flickr user have a consistent theme. Image is of an actor whose performance is discussed in the adjacent section.
Good ALT text, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request for source review[edit]
@Tintor2: @Jaguar: @Freikorp: @Bcschneider53: @Indopug: If possible, could any of you help me with this nomination by providing a source review? It is a busy time of the year, so I understand if you do not have either the time or interest in doing so, but I would be very grateful and can help with any of your projects on here if you would like. Indopug: since you already have helped me with correcting the reference style, I would greatly appreciate your input if possible. Thank you in advance either way. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do it. Just give me small time. I'll do it before going to sleep.Tintor2 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! And take as much time as you need. If you ever need my help with anything, please let me know. And I am happy to see that your FAC for Tidus is getting a lot of attention; congratulations on that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is sourced. References are well formated. All dates are consisted and authors are added to most of them. The source review passes. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tintor2: Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe that a consensus has been reached for this review (four "support" votes, with each vote providing comments that greatly improved the article overall, and the completion of a source and image review). I think that this can be safely promoted given all of this, so I would like to check with you about the status of this FAC. I hope I do not sound rude or presumptuous for pinging you and asking you, as it is probably better to wait to receive your message on how the nomination goes either way. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
