Talk:Family (1976 TV series)

Family (1976 TV series) (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 20 July 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Family (1976 TV series) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 18, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Production

What is the source for this? "The pilot episode was filmed inside a private residence located at 1230 Milan Avenue in South Pasadena, California. A set, that was almost identical to the house, was built at 20th Century Studios in Century City (Los Angeles), California to film all other episodes." The pilot episode is clearly filmed on a set. The show's creators said they based it on the house at 1230 Milan, but there is no evidence they filmed the interiors in the actual home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4401:54BB:95:6F77:7AD:B42D (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal dispute

This statement in the Legal Dispute section is in error:

"After over a decade in court, a jury awarded Laird $1.69 million against Spelling, which she then lost on appeal (see Laird v. Blacker, 2 Cal.4th 606 (1992))."

In fact the jury assessed the damages against Laird's former lawyers, who she sued for malpractice. The link at "Laird sued Spelling again", a reporter's account of the litgation, makes this clear:

"The suit [against Spelling] was later dismissed for failure to prosecute. Laird appealed unsuccessfully, then sued her lawyers for malpractice in 1983.

"She convinced a jury that delays by the attorneys caused the dismissal, and that she would otherwise have won the lawsuit. She obtained a jury verdict for $1.69 million, but lost it in Laird v. Blacker (1992) 2 Cal.4th 606, holding that an appeal doesn’t toll the time in which to sue for legal malpractice."

Johnwellsking (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write Suggested

I'm sorry but this Wikipedia article about Family reads like someone's essay. The following words make it read like a essay- Arguably, clearly evidenced. Also the description of the characters read like a person who knows them. I think I am going to start removing the parts of page that read like a opinion,and not a fact. --74.240.236.45 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe statements like-The characters were also realistic. For example, Kate was depicted as the practical, rational and realistic voice of the show. Kate always stood by her opinion and was motivated to do what was right, even if it made her unpopular, as was clearly evidenced in the "Jury Duty" episode. The characters were realistic to whom? This reads like a opinion, also clearly evidenced- again to whom? Not every viewer would agree with these statements. Every viewer that saw the Jury Duty episode might not agree. Also this-Buddy was also a believable character in that she was somewhat of a tomboy, although she did express an interest in adopting a more feminine appearance in the "Coming of Age" episode. Again , not every person would agree with her being believable. Doug was a practical man who did not use his intellect to make others feel inferior. He listened to what Kate told him and always made time for Buddy. Again,this is a opinion,not a fact. I could go on and on but these are just a few examples. This article needs to be written with facts, not opinion and I am going to rewrite the article this way.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that might be the case, I think that you should re-evaluate calling someone else's work 'awful.' Wikipedia is about courtesy and it seems as if certain edits were made in good faith. Contributors to Wikipedia need to be supported and not overtly criticised. People make mistakes. Feel free to make the changes, but please try and be more diplomatic in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.255.88 (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And despite all this, the article is still in need of a rewrite, over three years later. It's still largely unsourced, still reads like a personal essay, occasionally mentions a miniseries in the vaguest possible terms without ever discussing a miniseries directly or offering any concrete information about it. Also, there is a red error message displayed any time the page is opened for editing, that says there are two "creator" credit lines in the infobox, causing a conflict; this state has existed for over a year, and no one has ever bothered to attempt to fix it. The first such line, which is ignored by the wikicode, credits a "Mark Gordon"; the second, which is displayed on the page, credits Jay Presson Allen, corresponding to the information given in the body copy. I could find no mention of a Mark Gordon anywhere in the article itself. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]