Jump to content

Talk:Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

Some thoughts on this, OlifanofmrTennant:

  • IMDb is not a good metric, even if repeated in other sources, as it's user-generated and subject to all sorts of issues like selection bias and vote stacking.
  • Without repeating other articles too much, I think there is some place in "Production" for an explanation of "six seasons and a movie" and that this did become the final episode after Yahoo! Screen collapsed. This might be some use.
  • Some book sources that look useful: [1][2]. I would like to use TV (The Book) but Google Books won't show me a preview: [3]
  • Other sources—I've not fully evaluated whether each is reliable and useful yet: ProQuest 1750643264 (Den of Geek listicle), Daily Beast, Daily Dot, /Film, Observer, Collider, Alan Sepinwall in Uproxx, Press Enterprise, TVLine, ScreenCrush, CinemaBlend, TVOvermind, HappyMag
  • Chang's fart joke is explained here.
  • Per WP:VGRS, CBR is a "situational" source, so we need to think about whether this is an appropriate use.

Let me know any thoughts you have. I can try to incorporate some of these sources within the next few weeks, but if you can do it sooner then go for it. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So included on the season six DVD it includes an extra titled "Six seasons and a finale" which includes some production details. Could it be cited or would it be considered Original research the same way citing an episode would be? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can definitely cite DVD extras like that. — Bilorv (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that it's fine to use that as a source, but be careful not to overload the article with that information – see WP:PRIMARY. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: other than some of the additional sources above I think we've resolved all those points. I want to add any more sources I can find and reformulate the "Reception" section by theme rather than by critic. I've put a lot of the content in an "Analysis" section—do you think it makes sense at the moment? Does any of the content need to be reordered or move back to "Production"?
Also, I like the fact about the opening shots from the DVD commentary. I know some of them aren't filled with much information but are there any other facts that could be relevant? (We shot this scene on location—okay, he's right. It won't work.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might but I dont have access to the season 6 commentary's as they aren't included on the complete series box set. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Would you be intrested in nominating this for GA?. I'ts fine if your not. I'm going to make a few edits. But please let me know either way. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I've not forgotten this article but I have been very busy. I can't commit to doing this immediately but in the next month I could carry out some more edits and then we could co-nominate it for GA. If you would prefer not to wait and nominate it yourself then go ahead—I don't mind either way. — Bilorv (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I'll wait for you. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I'm very sorry I wasn't able to get this done but I was snowed under by some unexpected commitments. I hope you can still move forwards with it and get the green plus of approval. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 23:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems interesting; will be able to get to this by the end of the week. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media:
  • This article currently does not have any images. While the lack of media does not disqualify this article from promotion, I do feel that an image or two would be beneficial—maybe of someone heavily involved in the making of the episode, like Harmon? Or perhaps a suitable screencap for the infobox? (I should note that images will be more-or-less required if you intend to take this article to FAC down the line.)
Sources:
  • This started as a spot check of about one-third of the refs, but when I went to check all the links to make sure they were live, I immediately found a possible verification issue. Partly because of this—and partly because I find the concept of a sitcom with shared threads between Moral Orel (Stamatopoulos's involvement) and Rick and Morty fascinating—I decided to get thorough by checking every ref for source-text integrity and I unfortunately found a few more concerns.
    • Where does ref 1 verify the production code for this episode?
    • Ref 10 does not mention the characters played by Alison Brie, Gillian Jacobs, Ken Jeong, Joel McHale, Danny Pudi, and Jim Rash—only that those six actors have leading roles. I note that ref 25 does verify which actors portray which characters; I suggest adding it as a supplemental citation for the sentence in question.  Done
    • Where does ref 14 verify the Yvette Nicole Brown cameo in "Ladders"?
    • Ref 15 describes Paget Brewster and Keith David as "new regular[s]" and, based on my reading of the sources, it sounds like they are recurring presences throughout the season. For this reason, I question their being listed as guest stars in the infobox.
    • Ref 17: I note that, per WP:DAILYBEAST, the reliability of The Daily Beast is up in the air. However, it is not used in the article to make any potentially contentious claims about living persons; it is used to provide commentary on and context for the episode. I am torn here. (Struck per ThaesOfereode's comment below. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • Ref 18 is a dead link.
    • Refs 27–28: where is it verified that Community was Yahoo! Screen's "most substantial production"? Thielman wrote that Screen would "probably be best remembered for picking up ... Community for one more season", but I don't know if this is synonymous with Community being Screen's most significant offering. Unless I'm missing something.
      • Digital rends doenst offer much on that count mainly just for the shutting down bit. I found some other sources which say similar things [4] TheWrap says "Yahoo Screen had famously acquired the NBC-canceled “Community,” where the Joel McHale series enjoyed a one-season run online", [5] Variety talks about the series and its significance to the platform. [6] Community is the only one the Hollywood reporter names
    • Ref 32: I am concerned that this source is misrepresented in the article. The prose states that the reviewer considered the episode to be a "great conclusion to the series", but the actual review reads as much more mixed. The first couple sentences describe it as the most suitable possible closer to the season, but I don't think "fitting" is interchangeable with "great", which is highlighted by the reviewer clarifying that this is meant neither as praise nor derision. The reviewer goes on to criticize the characterization (particularly Jeff) and the "reality" of the episode, while still reserving compliments for some of the humor.
Prose:
  • The §Critical_reception section is a little messy, I'm afraid. I don't see a need for it to be eight paragraphs, especially when most of them are quite short—averaging around two sentences apiece. Plus, the sources cited generally communicate praise for the episode (although ref 32 is much more reserved than the article currently lets on). I think that if you combined these paragraphs so that there were two or three, this section would feel a bit less jolty and would flow more smoothly.
  • On a related note to the above, I don't think the two Den of Geek sources are used to their full potential here; the sentence that both sources are used to cite only mentions that the two writers praised the episode; this contrasts with other publications cited in this section, where the prose mentions which aspects of the episode were commented on by those reviewers.
  • The episode features Joel McHale, Gillian Jacobs, Danny Pudi, Ken Jeong, Jim Rash, and Alison Brie as Jeff Winger, Britta Perry, Abed Nadir, Ben Chang, Dean Pelton, Annie Edison. – At the very least, another 'and' should be added here. I think it would also be helpful to either add a 'respectively' at the end, or to group the characters together with their actors in between commas (i.e. 'Joel McHale as Jeff Winger, Gillian Jacobs as Britta Perry,' so on so forth).  Done
  • In the next sentence after that one, commas seem to be misplaced. I think it would read better if you pulled the comma after 'Dart' forward to just after 'episode'.  Done
  • program and programme are used interchangeably. Because Community is an American TV series, this should be standardized to 'program'.  Done
  • Alex Stedman felt that the episodes was a satisfying... – There is a singular-plural conflict here.  Done
Other:
  • The article passes for stability; there have only been three edits in as many months. The nominator has the second-highest authorship of the article, trailing the leader by only eight percent; this is sufficient for me. I could not detect concerns with copyright or plagiarism, though I note that there were technical difficulties when I tried to run Earwig using the search engine. I have slight NPOV concerns, mainly pertaining to ref 32, as mentioned above.
OlifanofmrTennant, I have a lot of respect for your work. The article is not bad or even mediocre by any means, but I'm not quite sure if it is ready for promotion just yet. The writing is kind of clunky in places, and I have some concerns about the sourcing and verifiability. Usually, when the pieces are in place for a GA but there is still work that needs to be done, I put the nomination on hold to allow a week for improvements to be made. In this case, I can't tell if I am being overzealous about some things (particularly the use of The Daily Beast as a source), so I am going to seek a second opinion for reassurance. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in as a second opinion. I think the issues regarding The Daily Beast are probably not applicable to this article: my understanding is that the source is mostly controversial for its BLP and political issues and the only three times the citation stands alone is to show a relationship to events in the series and to attribute an opinion. Where the source is used in conjunction, it is used to (a) confirm a plural (i.e., "Critics found that [...]"), (b) make a comment about the relationship of the episode to Remedial Chaos Theory, (c) briefly describe the airport scene in the episode. For the purposes of this article, I don't see any issues with using the source. Nothing stated by the source is controversial and most of it is backed by other reliable sources. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ThaesOfereode for your input – that position is where I was beginning to lean. I have struck my concern about The Daily Beast. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Converting to a hold now that a second opinion has been provided. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: I believe I have adressed your concerns.
@OlifanofmrTennant: We're almost there. The article has improved by quite a bit since my initial comments but there are still a couple things that I think should be addressed:
  • I still think a little more information on what the Den of Geek writers thought of the episode should be included in the article.
  • Something I just picked up on is that both Ice Cube Head and Ice-Cube Head appear in the article. The hyphen should either be discarded or applied consistently; do the sources use one stylization more than the other?
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went with the version without the hyphen as that's what the episodes subtitles use Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: I used one of the DOG reviews, the problem with using the other is that most of what it says is already covered elsewhere and I worry it would feel too repetitive. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me OlifanofmrTennant, but I'm afraid your edit introduced a couple new (small) issues:
  • We now have both "Basic Story" and "Basic Sandwich" being separately described as the season five finale. Either the S5 finale mention should be reserved for "Basic Sandwich" only, or it should be clarified that these two episodes collectively were a two-part season finale.
  • The reference to "Basic Intergluteal Numismatics" was moved from §Analysis to §Production. Was this intentional? The information feels more fitting for §Analysis imo.
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I'm a little worried that the first part of season five's finale "Basic Sandwich" and the second part of the season five finale, "Basic Story" could be misleading, since "Basic Story" was actually the first part, and "Basic Sandwich" was the second. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Oh sorry that's my bad I got them confused. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries OlifanofmrTennant – everything looks good to me now. Will pass the article after I hit the 'publish changes' button. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that ending of the TV series Community features a fourth-wall breaking monologue?
Improved to Good Article status by OlifanofmrTennant (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article was promoted for GA on August 18, so it's eligible. Everything is sourced, images look fine too. I prefer the first hook, the second one is also not bad, but the third one is too obscure for me.
  • The hook now says features a fourth-wall breaking monologue, but in the article it is delivers a fourth wall–breaking monologue. Should it instead be "a fourth-wall-breaking monologue"? I also can't find it in the source provided, can you please point me to the right section of it? Artem.G (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emotional_Consequences_of_Broadcast_Television&oldid=1248883714"