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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2021 [1].

---

Veronica Clare[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a traditional 1940s film noir, but cast Lauren Bacall as the private investigator instead of Humphrey Bogart. This is how television critics described the 1991 Lifetime crime drama Veronica Clare. It was one of Lifetime's first original scripted programs and it represented the rising interest in female detective stories. The series was unsuccessful, being canceled after nine of its commissioned 13 episodes aired, and has largely fallen into obscurity. Despite this, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of coverage on it, particularly from academic sources.

I initially worked on this article back in 2018 and received a very helpful GA review from @J Milburn:. Earlier this year, I heavily rewrote and expanded the article with additional sources, and I put it through a very beneficial peer review with feedback from @Heartfox:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Homeostasis07:, and @Bilorv: Thank you in advance for any comments and suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref error: Moshavi 1003, p. 27. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected it in the article so it now links down the appropriate citation. For whatever reason, I had put the publication year as "1003" instead of "1993", but this has now been corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the article date is September 2, 1991, not April 19, 1993. Also, the magazine's name was Broadcasting, not Broadcasting & Cable yet. Heartfox (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the publication date and the publication name. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

• File:VeronicaClareTitleCard.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• While I don't see any copyright concerns with File:Laura Robinson headshot.jpg or File:Lauren Bacall 1945 press photo.jpg, these images are somewhat large. Try to reduce their display size.
• Since there's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Jb image.jpg is indeed the uploader's own work.

I might review the prose later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the media review. I have reduced the size of both the Laura Robinson and the Lauren Bacall images, but please let me know if they need to be further reduced in size. I hope you have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem at all, and this edit definitely helped things :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Aoba. Nice article! I'm expecting to support. I'll probably have some small-ish comments, and will try to get to these in the coming days. Wow, I was surprised to find out from the Laura McKinlay Robinson page that she created the game Balderdash; I played that game a fair amount as a kid. Moisejp (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need with the review. Robinson has a very interesting career, and @GRuban: did a wonderful job with her article (and with helping me to get images of her). Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks.--GRuban (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• This is sort of a question and a suggestion, but when Americans hear "Chinatown" without any other context, do they immediately think of the one in Los Angeles first? I understand the one in San Fransisco is the biggest (and I thought I learned long ago that New York's was #2—though I could be misremembering or its ranking could have changed) so I would have assumed San Fransisco's was the most famous. I know there is a wiki-link to Chinatown, Los Angeles, but if there's any doubt about whether it's by far the most famous, would it be better to mention the city in the text? And regardless of which Chinatown is most famous in the USA, I wonder whether for readers outside the USA, mentioning "Los Angeles" could be even more important than mentioning "Chinatown". (Again, I realize there's a wiki-link, but I'm thinking from a point of view of the coherence of the text as it is.) I noticed after I wrote this that further down, in Story and characters, you do spell out "Chinatown, Los Angeles"; the fact that this precision is needed in the main text may suggest it would also be good in the lead. Moisejp (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good catch. I would image that American have different associations with the word "Chinatown". I could imagine cases where most think of either San Fransisco or New York City before Los Angeles. I agree that it is best to be as transparent as possible to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. I have revised it to so the full wikilink is used here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critics praised Bloom's script for "Veronica's Aunt" ". I suggest mentioning that it was the first episode. You may not even need to mention the name of the episode here in the lead, but I leave that up to you. Moisejp (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is another good point. The title "Veronica's Aunt" is quite meaningless on its own and is likely too trivial to mention in the lead since a reader would not have any real context. I have replaced it with "the first episode" per your suggestion as I think it is best. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Story and characters:

• In the lead, Chinatown is wiki-linked, and it also is here in its first instance in the main text. However, Laura Robinson is wiki-linked in the lead but not here in its first instance in the main text. It'd be good if you could be consistent about this for everything that is wiki-linked in the lead. Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked. Thank you for pointing this out. I am not quite sure how I missed that one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series characterizes Clare as mysterious". I'm not sure the "characterizes" works here, unless the show somehow explicitly describes her as so. Moisejp (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have revised this part, but I would be more than happy to do further work on it if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cases also focus on Clare's intelligence and intuition". Doesn't seem quite precise English to say "Cases ... focus on [her attributes]."

• That is very true. It is certainly not the best wording lol. I have revised it, but again, I would be more than happy to revisit this part if further improvements could be had. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Clare is characterized as a loner with few close friends[12][15] and lives alone in a hotel suite." Does this mean critics have characterized her as a loner? If so, I think you need to say this; and if you change the first part of the sentence, I think you will also need to rework the second part of the sentence so that the two parts of the sentence will flow. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is brought up by Robinson and a specific critic so I have tried to attribute both of them in the prose. I have also tried to adapt the hotel suite part to work better. I am not entirely certain about wording to both these parts as it feels rather clunky to me so any further recommendations would be greatly appreciated here. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I would wiki-link rare books, bartender, valet, or even loner, but if you feel these are important to wiki-link, OK. (It feels like overlinking to me.)

• I have removed those links. I agree that they are instances of over-linking and take away from the links that really do matter by comparison. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be personal preference (and I think I have seen someone before on Wikipedia saying the opposite of what I'm about to say) so by all means feel free to ignore this suggestion, but I find there are so many more interesting verbs that can be used instead of "said", which is kind of blah, and reduces the "engageability" of an article's writing; I mean, I might consider using it about once in an article if I'd already used lots of other verbs. Anyway, again, feel free to ignore this comment, but that's just my opinion. Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for bring this up. It is a good point. I have removed a majority of this from the article and retained the word for instances when someone was really saying something. I think my over-use of the word came from an experience I had in a college creative writing class. I remember for my very first draft, I had relied very heavily on a lot of different synonyms for "said" to the point that my professor and my classmates said it was distracting from the actual dialogue. However, with that being said, creative writing and writing on Wikipedia are two different things. Anyway, long story short, I agree with you. Just wanted to explain why I might have subconsciously over-used this word. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

• "Veronica Clare was one of three original scripted programs Lifetime developed in 1991, along with The Hidden Room and Confessions of Crime." I feel like Lifetime should be the subject of the sentence here or in some way get a bigger introduction, and "TV network" should be included. This is Lifetime's first mention in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I have added "Television network" as a descriptive phrase and I have revised it to the sentence to more so focus on the network rather than the show. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have an immediate suggestion but I wonder whether there is a good way to rewrite "examples include a female police officer in Lady Blue, a female physician in Kay O'Brien, and a female private detective in Partners in Crime" using "female" only once. If you can, it would be less repetitive (but if your attempts end up making the sentence awkward in other ways, it may be best not to).

• I ended up just removing the repetition of "female" from the list as I believe that is already clear from the earlier part, "shows about women in traditionally male occupations". Let me know if further revision would be necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "He had difficulty pitching the series to networks, saying they did not accept dramas with a young female lead." I don't think "saying" works really well here. When he said it was obviously afterwards, but the way the sentence is written it sounds kind of like it happened at the same time. Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point. I have added to the prose that Bloom said this during a 1991 interview so hopefully, that adds further context, but let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Before Veronica Clare, Robinson was typecast as the femme fatale." It'd be great to have more details about this if they're available. At the very very least, maybe you could mention some of her previous roles that may seem to follow typecasting, without explicitly saying these were what she was typecast for. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I have included one example where a critic explicitly described her role as a femme fatale. Robinson talks rather broadly about this, but I have included her speculation about it. If it helps, here is the quote from the source: "I never get the bimbo parts, but I have played a lot of baddies. I'm constantly asked to play evil women. Maybe it's because of my eyes and my voice. I also play femme fatales." Do you think I should also add "the villain" to the prose along with "the femme fatale"? I am uncertain since femme fatales are often cast in the role of an antagonist. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I tentatively went ahead and added "villain". If I had to lean one way or the other, I think it may be legitimate and worthwhile to mention both. Moisejp (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it would be best to have both for clarity. Thank you for adding this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "and according to Variety's Tone" I understand probably Tone goes by just one name, but it's a bit awkward in the flow of text. Possibly consider writing this sentence so that the writer's name is not mentioned ("a writer from Variety"?) so that the reader doesn't stumble over this part. Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair point. I have double-checked the Variety source to just confirm that there was not a more formal name. I have replaced it with your suggestion, and I have adjusted later parts of the article accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender analysis:

• "existing in tension with" This feels like an unusual phrase to me. Is there another way to say this?

• Apparently, I felt like being fancy that day lol. I do agree that it is not good, particularly for a featured article, so I have revised it to hopefully be better, but I would be more than happy to look through this part again. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "restrained, smolder sexuality" Should this be "smoldering"?

• It should be "smoldering". I have revised it accordingly. Thank you for catching this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "while having the male supporting characters actually solve the cases" Can this be expanded on, and is it a legitimate observation (are there multiple citable examples of this) or is this just an outlier comment? If true, it seems like a big point that should be expanded on more in the article. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good question. From my research, it is very much an outlier comment. All the coverage around the show really focuses on Veronica Clare being a private investigator and her agency with this position. I was uncertain of what to do with the comment from this source within the greater critical conversation about the series. Unfortunately, Meehan and Byars do not elaborate on this. I cannot really speak on veracity of their statement as I cannot see any of the episodes aside from a small YouTube clip. What would you recommend to do with something like this? Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's an outlier comment that raises more questions than it answers, I would probably just remove it. Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-though:

• "Bloom explained that he had kept expenses low by hiring a small staff of producers and writers and not taking foreign investments" Is there a bigger interest rate on foreign investments or something? This part wasn't clear to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for bringing this up. It is a good question. I am having some issues accessing this source right now. I received via an email from an editor as for some reason, I cannot access on ProQuest via Wikipedia Library Card Platform. It is likely just an issue with my internet connection, but if that does not resolve itself by tomorrow, I will email the editor again to see if they can resend me the article. I honestly cannot remember if it provides any context about the foreign investments or if it was just a small part of a large quote. I will keep you updated on it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the delay with this. Thank you to Heartfox for the source. It turns out that my wording for this part was incorrect. The cited article is a discussion on how television shows at that time were increasingly using foreign investments and working with foreign companies to keep production costs low. However, Veronica Clare was an exception to this as Bloom refused to do that and instead used other methods to keep production values low. He does not explicitly say why he refused foreign investments, but if I had to speculate, it may be for creative control so he can choose the actors he wanted and stay true to his own vision. However, that is just speculation on my part. Let me know if this part needs further work. Thank you for your patience! Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be my last comment. I really like the overall structure of the Critical reception section. However, I find the fact that all four opening sentences are almost exactly the same length to become repetitive-sounding. If you could make just one of them (maybe the second or third one) twice as long, that would break up the repetition. You could do this by adding ", such as..." or ", including..." to the end of the sentence and then some kind of mini-mini-summary of some of the main points. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the kind words. That makes sense to me. It is important to vary sentence length to keep readers engaged. I have revised the opening sentences for the second and third paragraphs. Let me know if those are okay or if they require further work. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm ready to support. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bilorv[edit]

• It's a support from me: gave it another look over and I've no further comments after the peer review, where I found the references reliable, the coverage comprehensive and the prose professional. — Bilorv (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Initial comments

• "who owns a rare bookstore" - would "a rare book store" be better? Current wording kinda suggests that it is the store which is rare..........

• That is a good point. However since "book store" is not correct (at least I do not believe it is), I have instead used "store selling rare books". Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "although in 1989, the network acquired" - don't think that comma is needed

• I think thee comma is necessary, but I must admit that commas are not my strong point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I got as far as the end of the Background section, will look at the rest later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "shown as transitions before each episode's act" - reads as if each episode has only one act, is this correct?

• I have revised this as I believe the postcards are used for transitions between each of the episode's individual acts. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a "nitery"? Never heard that word before........

• I have not heard of this word before either to be honest. I have added a link to the Wiktionary entry for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was cheaper than network television shows" - wasn't this a network show? Should that read "most network shows" or similar? Apologies if this is me betraying my ignorance of the US TV market, we don't have TV networks in the UK so they are a slight mystery to me...........

• That is a good question. To be honest, now that people are consuming more and more television on digital platforms like streaming, I would not be surprised if more and more people become unfamiliar with this concept in the future. Lifetime is a basic-cable channel so in the past, they could only be viewed after paying a fee. This is different network television which was available to everyone who owned a television. That is the reason why there are the Big Three television network in the US. In the past, network television usually had bigger budgets for their shows as they had larger audiences (and made more money) than the cable networks, which had smaller audiences since their content was not as widely available. I have included a link for network television in the article to hopefully clear that up. I hope this explanation helps at least a little. To be fair, I get just as confused about the UK TV market works. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "attributed this decision to productions issues" => "attributed this decision to production issues"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lifetime still had an interested" => "Lifetime still had an interest"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lifetimes continued to broadcast" => "Lifetime continued to broadcast"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "would ever connect with audience" => "would ever connect with an audience"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's all I got. An interesting read about a TV show which it may not surprise you to learn I had never previously heard of..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Apologies for some of those super silly mistakes that I made. I have tried to explain the difference between network and cable television in the US, but let me know if further clarification would be beneficial. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

• Add filming time to the lead (BTW I'm glad you found details for that!)

• I have added it to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does "viewers would have learned more about her past in future episodes" mean there were plans to expand her story had the series ran for longer? If so, then I'd make this more explicit.

• You are correct. According to the source, there were plans to explore more Clare's past in future episodes. I am not entirely sure how to make it more explicit. I would greatly appreciate any advice or suggestions for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "cited" from "cited Veronica Clare as part of this strategy" doesn't read very well

• I have revised this part with a different word, but let me know if another word would be better. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "criticized subsequent episodes as rapidly deteriorating in quality" → "felt the show's quality rapidly deteriorated with its subsequent episodes"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would note how reviewer Mike Hughes was writing for Press and Sun-Bulletin

• I attributed Hughes as writing for Gannett News Service since that is in the article's by-line. I am somewhat uncertain about changing it to Press and Sun-Bulletin as I was under the impression that Hughes' article was published in that newspapers (as well as others) and not specifically written for that one alone. This clipping directly identifies him as a "Gannett News Service columnist". Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, this looks very well compiled. It isn't far from being FA-worthy! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them, but one. For some reason, I am uncertain on how to change that one so I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for that. I will think on it further. My mind is not really working right now for some reason. I always appreciate your comments and I hope you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem. I just made a bit of a copyedit here for the aborted idea of expanding on the protagonist's past, and can now support the nomination. My bad on Hughes; I somehow missed the Gannett News Service bit when he was first mentioned and initially thought his name was just brought up out of the blue :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the copy-edit and the support! Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostastis07[edit]

• All of my comments were addressed during the peer review. After reading the article again at this stage, I have no further criticism to add. It's a wonderfully written article. Good luck with the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I hope you are doing well and having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tintor2[edit]

• There is not much I can ask after seeing this review. It's hard to ask but is it possible to add material about the compilation film? Then again, it must be really hard to find.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support. From my understanding, the compilation films are just episodes from the sow put together to be film-length. I unfortunately could not find further information about them. One of the sources, Susan White, briefly mentioned her confusion with the conversion of episodes into films, but I do not think that really has a place here. I would not be surprised if Lifetime did it since their original movies had higher ratings than their shows so maybe they were trying to bring more popularity to this, although that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tintor2: Apologies for the ping. I was curious if you would be able to do a source review as I believe that is the only thing holding this FAC back from promotion. I completely understand if you do not want to, but I just wanted to ask. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

@Aoba47: No problem. I'm already used to your nominations so I'm pretty sure I can make it pass:

• The infobox and lead section are not references per wp:lead
• Every paragraph is properly is sourced, especially when quoting
• I used Archivebot to test and everything was archived. Only three references lacked archiving but they were added as I used the bot.
• Citations are consistent
• Every citation mentions the original source with a wikilink so every article is WP:Reliable source from what I gather.
• As a result I pass this source review. If anybody feels there are other issues that I failed to find remind me.Tintor2 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review! Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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