Talk:The Blacklist/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 3 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The primary topic status of the show over the term "The Blacklist", which is firmly supported by data evidence, has remained impregnable. The opposes in contrast are not compelling. Many of them are rooted in refusing to accept that definite articles are sufficient WP:SMALLDETAILS to discount blacklisting from consideration, despite being repeatedly given evidence that definite articles were found to be sufficient disambiguation. Other weak arguments relied on by the opposers include "this is pointless" and "this other blacklist was the first that came in my mind". (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

---

The Blacklist (TV series) → The Blacklist – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are only two uses of "The Blacklist" listed at Blacklist (disambiguation) besides this popular TV series now in its 9th season: an obscure 1916 silent film and an obscure metal band. The page views of the TV series dominate. Anyone searching with "the blacklist" is almost certainly looking for the TV series. There are other uses of "Blacklist", of course, but those are highly unlikely to be sought as "The Blacklist". History: Before the series premiered, The Blacklist was a dab page to the metal band and to the (then) upcoming TV series[1]. Later it was changed to be a redirect to Blacklist (disambiguation), which it currently remains. It needs to be deleted to make room for this move. В²C ☎ 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support, appears to be the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any Blacklist (or blacklist) could be referred to as the Blacklist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Of course any blacklist could be referred ”the” blacklist, Necrothesp, but how is that relevant here? For how many uses of “blacklist” is “the” part of its COMMONNAME? How many uses of “blacklist” are likely to be sought as “The Blacklist”? That’s what’s relevant. See below also, please. Your reconsideration accordingly would be appreciated. —В²C ☎ 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    • My opinion on this has never changed. "The" is not enough to disambiguate. Accordingly, no, my opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Necrothesp, I don’t understand. What about Reidgreg’s examples below? The Godfather, The Office, The Big Bang Theory… Do you disagree with the community about “the” being enough to disambiguate in these cases? —В²C ☎ 03:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Frankly, yes. But if there was a real consensus then I would accept it. However, I do not believe a few highly notable examples equal a consensus. Other similar RMs have been closed without a move. There is clearly no consensus either way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

          I tried looking around for RMs and this is what I found:

          • Talk:The Wire § Requested move 12 January 2022 - The Wire → The Wire (TV series) unanimous opposition, holding that the show was the clear primary topic and one editor specifically noting readers looking for a page called "wire" won't be searching "The Wire"
          • Talk:The Exorcist/Archive 1 § Requested move 9 March 2022 - The Exorcist (film) → The Exorcist moved with majority support, discussion doesn't mention any possible conflict with exorcist.
          • Talk:The Interview § Requested move 2 September 2016 - The Interview (2014 film) → The Interview. A bit older, passed unanimously with limited participation. Nominator notes "The Interview" being distinct from "Interview".
          • Talk:The Notebook § Requested move 9 August 2015 - The Notebook (2004 film) → The Notebook unanimous support, no mention of a possible conflict with notebook.

          This isn't a lot, it doesn't indicate a global consensus, but it does show decisions in line with the support side of this discussion, using the same arguments. I didn't spot any going the other way, but I only skimmed through a few hundred RMs. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  The UK and The USA redirect to United Kingdom and United States rather than UK (disambiguation) and USA (disambiguation) – Reidgreg (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  As do UK and USA! Because they're the primary topics. This TV show, however, is not the primary topic for Blacklist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you, Necrothesp, are personally unfamiliar with the TV show, but it is most certainly the PRIMARYTOPIC for Blacklist by page views. Just look! —В²C ☎ 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Maybe. But clearly not by long-term significance, where it is extremely rare for a TV show to trump a common concept. Frankly, the idea that it should is pretty laughable and simply discredits Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

      Ah, so for you it’s about your perception of WP “credibility” trumping helping users find what they’re seeking. —В²C ☎ 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

      Rare, like a TV series approaching 10 seasons, 200 episodes, and spawning a media franchise? Yes, that is rare. I feel it's comparable to The Big Bang Theory in that respect. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

      Despite being a huge fan of TBBT, I would actually agree that it is not primary topic for the phrase. As I said, it's hugely rare for a TV show to trump a common term in primacy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Mild oppose Although Born2cycle is correct, I find the argument against the move raised by Necrothesp compelling. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Debresser, thank you for considering my follow-up questions. —В²C ☎ 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    I agree with the reply by Necrothesp that "The" is not enough to disambiguate. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Necro. Hollywood blacklist stands out (to me) as "THE" blacklist. Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Gonnym, with “the” as part of its name? Likely to be sought preceded with “the”? If that’s so, why is The Hollywood Blacklist red? Why was The Blacklist about the band (now at The Blacklist (band)) from 2008 (prior to which apparently The Blacklist was a red link) until it was moved in March 2013 to make room for a two-dab dab page? Yes, in May 2013 an IP changed that dab page to be a redirect to Blacklist (disambiguation) (Blacklist itself remains a redirect to Blacklisting), but back then the TV show hadn’t aired yet and clearly was not the primary topic, so that may have been appropriate. But not anymore. In fact, there is an argument to be made (though I’m not making it) that by page views the TV series is the primary topic even for plain Blacklist. —В²C ☎ 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NWFCTM specifically cautions against using 'what first comes to mind' as this is subjective and can lead to systemic bias. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  You're actually using systemic bias to justify why an American TV show should be primary topic for a common phrase? Really? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. I'm citing an editing standard to discount personal opinion arguments which have been used by both the oppose and support side in this discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I find it unlikely that a reader would type the and the capital B if they weren't looking for the title of a work. Like The Godfather, The Office or The Big Bang Theory, this makes sense to me. A hatnote might be included. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Adding a little more to my opinion: It's the combined with title case which distinguishes this from generic usage. Even if we accept the argument that "the" can be applied to anything (though WP:THE says otherwise for article titles), the TV show is clearly primary across all blacklist articles (pageview comparison). That's the fully disambiguated title, nobody's going there by accident, and it's been the primary topic for as long as pageview statistics are available (ie: it's not recentism). Perhaps in ten years this will change and the articles can be moved again, but today it is primary and it should be moved to the proposed title. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  If I can bring up one more example: someone searching for idiot is unlikely to type The Idiot. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I find the rationale for opposing rather odd, The Godfather goes to the the highly acclaimed film, as oppose to Godfather which goes to a disambiguation page. Actually what I find more odd is why Blacklist (←This should be a disambiguation page!) doesn't go to a disambiguation page instead of the term Blacklisting. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:OSE! Because Blacklisting is the clear primary topic for the term Blacklist! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp. [Looking at ngrams, we see considerable use of https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=The+Blacklist&corpus=26&smoothing=3 The Blacklist] prior to the start of the TV show, which should address concerns about how many uses of “blacklist” are likely to be sought as it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • And actual page views demonstrate that the uses likely to be sought per ngrams are dwarfed by the likelihood of the tv show being sought. Usage in published books revealed by ngrams is not a good predictor of likelihood of being sought in many cases, including this one. —В²C ☎ 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems far too late, frankly, and a bit pointless. The show is fading in popularity, and any argument that this is the most common use should be qualified with 'for now...' On balance, the better argument is to oppose. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at outgoing page views for Blacklist (disambiguation)? Practically everyone who gets there ends up going to the TV series. —В²C ☎ 17:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The TV show is the primary topic for the term "The Blacklist". I find the oppose comments here unavailing. -- Vaulter 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support The TV show is clearly the primary topic for “The Blacklist”. The link traffic data backs it up. Not to mention, I’ve never heard of anyone refer to a blacklist as a proper noun with “the” in front of it other than for the TV show. Unlike, say, the US and UK where it is completely common to say “the United States” or “the United Kingdom”. A hatnote can be added linking to the disambig page for Blacklist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The Blacklist series is the primary topic and satisfies common name. Support args are policy- and guideline-based while opposing args are more toward "I don't like it" and should be discarded. It has been shown time after time on Wikipedia that the definite article "the" most definitely disambiguates titles such as The Carpenters and so many other examples as shown. Consensus in this survey lies with the supporting args, and "(TV series)" must be redirected and tagged {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 05:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion

Here are a slew of examples this article would be WP:CONSISTENT with if moved as proposed.

• The Americans is about the TV series despite the Americans article and The Americans (disambiguation) dab page.
• The American Embassy is about the TV series despite the American Embassy dab page, not to mention the arguable primary topic of "American embassy", List of diplomatic missions of the United States.
• The Godfather is about the film despite the Godparent article and the Godfather dab page.
• The Office is about the TV series despite the Office article and Office (disambiguation).
• The Big Bang Theory is about the TV series despite the Big Bang article and the Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) dab page.
• The Wire is about the TV series despite the Wire article and several other uses of "The Wire" listed at the Wire (disambiguation) dab page.
• The Exorcist is about the film despite the Exorcist article and the Exorcist (disambiguation) dab page.
• The Interview is about the film despite the Interview article and several other uses of "The Interview" listed at the Interview (disambiguation) dab page.
• The Notebook is about the film despite the Notebook article and other uses of "The Notebook" as well as "notebook" listed at the Notebook (disambiguation) dab page.
• The A-Team is about the TV series despite the The A-Team (disambiguation) (to which A-Team redirects).
• The Event is about the TV series despite the The Event (disambiguation) dab page.

Sure there is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but are all these "wrong"? There are apparent counter-examples, but titles like The Flash (2014 TV series), for example, are actually consistent with this proposal because in such cases the series is clearly not the primary topic for the base name (e.g. The Flash).

So, why should this article be an exception? --В²C ☎ 21:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with the fact that you can't garner consensus for your proposed move. Replying to each and every oppose and posting walls of "other stuff" is not going to help you. Just let your proposal play out, and chill. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There may be no numerical consensus but I feel consensus can be taken from quality-of-argument (see WP:TALKDONTREVERT). I do agree that having nothing new to add to the discussion, that there's no use beating a dead horse (WP:DEADHORSE). – Reidgreg (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

How about giving the idea a chance in order to figure out, whether this would make any difficulties for users or not? If it would, we can always revert the decision and never come back to this question. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.57.28.125 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree too. I think having the concise list above is adding to the discussion. —-В²C ☎ 04:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• The Equalizer as oppose to Equalizer which is a dis page, it's the same situation, same category of TV show as The Blacklist, a perfect example that what is proposed does work and the oppose comments above do not really give any weight. Govvy (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Aram Mojtabai - Acting Assistant Director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division (season 9)

Debresser,

Donald Ressler was a Director for same period in season 3, and it's shown in "Cast and characters". Why this is enough for Ressler, and not enough for Mojtabai? It's only your opinion, no one else have problem with this. Lado85 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. So I removed that as well. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the removal. It's not a significant thing to note in this context. --В²C ☎ 07:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Latest reverts

Hello, Debresser.

You've reverted my latest edit for the article, which was made in order to clear the copyedit headnote. I am not going to wage an edit war on you, but pleas, could you provide the reason for reversion which is not your subjective opinion? Also, it would be appreciated if you could give your solution to clearing the headnote. Eagowl (Talk) 06:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with copy editing, but you changed content in ways that IMHO do not reflect the content of the series correctly. I also noticed removal of references in your edit, and that is something which warrants an explanation from your side. Debresser (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The removal of references I've done was only made in order to proceed with some the WP:MOS conditions, also for improving article readability. In the article beginning, the fully released season information is moved to production section annually, for example (if you don't believe me, check history). If you disagree about other refs deleted, just point them out. As for misinterpreting the content, I was just rewriting it to comply with the refs given and the series itself and see nothing wrong in my revision. Eagowl (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello once again, Debresser.

I know it might be a bit late, but yet as you can see below, due to some reverts you've made following ShaneSim76's edits the stability of the article is contested. I sincerely ask you to discuss your future reverts on a talk page in case you repeat them more than once to prevent edit wars and subjecting the article to instability.

Thank you. Eagowl 06:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a reason to refrain from making necessary edits. Your request is therefore declined. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Got that. Eagowl 23:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Blacklist/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 17:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this article, about one of my favorite TV shows.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

For the most part, this article fulfills the GA criteria, but could use some additional work, especially on its prose and citation utilization.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose needs work. See below for suggestions.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows typical TV series format.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Citations need work, especially in the way citations are utilized; see below for review.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There has been some minor edit warring due to excessive capitalization by a trouble-making and relatively new editor. Could be worrisome, so it's something to be diligent about, unfortunately. This article also seem to get a lot of attention from IPs, something else to look out for.

   Actually, I think that this edit war is over, as there were no signs of its continuation. The last time when the edits/reverts happened was January 7, now it's February 1. Nevertheless, I don't know when we can count that its really over, and whether we can say the article is stable now. Eagowl

   I'm fine with your explanation. Some articles just get this kind of regular negative attention. I have this one on my watchlist now, so I'll try and help out with the diligence. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Four images, including logo in infobox; adequate for GA. However, I would suggest that you try and add more, perhaps pics of the cast and crew, if they're available. For example, there are free use images of Boone and Lennix.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Work on my suggestions and this should be good to go. Best of luck moving forward.

More later, including a prose and citation review. Please be patience; this may take a few days to complete. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: Much of my suggestions are just that and often won't affect an article's promotion, unless otherwise stated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the review! I'll try to adress the issues as soon as possible. Looking forward to the updates! Eagowl (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Prose review

I'm often WP:BOLD and do copyedits as I do review, to save time for the both of us. If I have questions, I include them below. Please revert and/or discuss as you see fit. The wording strikes me as awkward in some places; I attempted to improve it myself, but left it alone when I thought it wouldn't affect promotion. I suggest that you bring this article to peer review if you want to go further with it (i.e., FAC).

Original storyline (seasons 1–8)

For the most part, the Plot section is well-written. I've done some minor copyediting and have just one question:

• ...states that he and the FBI have a mutual interest in eliminating them. I watch the show, so I know that Red doesn't always "eliminate" the people on the blacklist. Should you change the word "neutralizing' instead? Or some other similar word.

The Cast and character section is a fun read.

Development

• The extended discussion of the series' renewal dates is a bit boring. I'm wondering if some of it is necessary. I looked at House (TV series) and a few TV series FAs, as well as Friends, another GA, and none of them included such a discussion. That may be because there's no information like that available, though. I won't insist that you do anything about it for this GAN, but I suggest that you find out from other editors who specialize in TV series to find out what to do about it.

• 3rd paragraph, about how they were affected by COVID: However, the production suffered... and following: More awkward wording. I would like you to rework this; it's a bit unclear. If you're able to answer the following questions with your sources, please do so. Which episode were they on when forced to shut down? Was the 19th episode the final one of the season? (I know that it was, but hopefully the source tells us.) Were they planning on 19 episodes? It's unclear if they decided to produce fewer episodes.

• 2nd-to-the-last sentence: Awkward wording, especially that last phrase. How about: "Instead of ending the season with the last episode they produced, which would have been not a good season-ending finale, they produced a partily-animated episode, using already-filmed live-active material and animation created by Proof, a company that uses 3D animation software and real-time computer graphics."

• It aired on May 15, 2020. Needs ref.

Need to stop for now; more later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Development (cont'd.)

• On May 11, 2014, NBC applied the series for a 2015 post–Super Bowl timeslot. Unclear. Do you mean that an episode during this season aired after the Super bowl? If so, you should state that more clearly.

• On June 24, 2021, a day after the finale of season 8 was aired, Bokenkamp revealed that he will not return for future seasons. That way Eisendrath took over the lead. Replace the presence tense "will" with the past tense "would." Usually I would just make the change myself, but I didn't this time because it brings me to my next point: the second sentence is a fragment. I suggest this: "On June 24, 2021, a day after the finale of season 8 was aired, Bokenkamp revealed that he would not return for future seasons, so Eisendrath took over the lead." When you say that E "took over the lead," does that mean that he became showrunner? Please clarify.

• Final paragraph in section: Is there any information about the resolution of this controversy and the court case?
  • I've searched for the results of the case and found nothing. Looks like they never revealed the results, but I know he just never returned to the series, which can't be proven by Internet information. The only way to find out is to search results at LA Superior Court database, but to do that court case number and courthouse are required.
    • No problem, sorry for the annoying question. Just wondered. Not something you need to do for this GAN or probably any other review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Everything else here done. Eagowl 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Main characters

• This point is about the images of Sutherland and Spader: Why is Sutherland included and not the other actors they considered? Since there are so few images in this article, perhaps you can add the other two to the gallery? (On a side note, they totally made the right choice. Spader is so perfect for this role and he's such a good actor, even when he chewing up the scenery. I could watch him read the phone book.)

• ...Tom Keen, Elizabeth's enigmatic husband... "Enigmatic" is Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. Please remove it, unless you can find a source that describes Tom in this way.

• He ultimately gave up his role the next season. The source (ref59, which has the word "enignmatic," btw) states that he was written out of the show; the current wording refers that Eggold chose to leave, but the source doesn't state that. How about: "He was written off the show the following season, when Tom was killed."

• Final sentence, same paragraph: I did some ce, including removing the italics and replacing it with quotes because it's a direct quote from Eggold.

• He has never left then, appearing in every single episode. Did Tawfiq appear in the pilot? If so, I think you should cut the first phrase because it's unnecessary; how about: "He has appeared in every episode since the show's premiere." Needs ref.

I think you should change the section title Supporting stars to "Supporting cast."

• The fourth season opened with the misleading departure of series veteran Susan Blommaert after her character is headshot by Reddington. I think that you should explain the Bloomaert's character is Red's cleaner Mr. Kaplan, to make it clearer.

• Fisher Stevens debuted as Marvin Gerard, an imprisoned criminal attorney joining Reddington's criminal empire and getting gradually obsessed with it, in the eponymous episode. The wording is a little clunky here. I'd just go ahead and change it, but I have one question before I do: When you call the episode "eponymous", do you mean that all this happened in one episode, and if not, which one, since there are three episodes named "Marvin Gerard" (seasons 3 and 9)?

• • A little cleanup done here. If it's still a bit clumsy, let me know and I'll try to do it once again. Eagowl 05:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• The fourth season opened with the misleading departure of series veteran Susan Blommaert after her character is headshot by Reddington. However, she remained till the end of the season and turned out to be a villain. "Headshot" usually refers to a picture, so I'd like you to change the wording here. How about: "The fourth season opened with the misleading departure of series veteran Susan Blommaert after her character is seemingly murdered by Reddington when she is discovered to have betrayed him, but she remained for the end of the season."

• 4th paragraph: He quit in the first half of the season. I changed it to "He left the series..." because the source doesn't say he quit, but that his character was killed.

• 5th paragraph: John Waters and Julian Sands appeared in season conclusion with Sands, playing the blacklister. The source (ref93) doesn't say that Sands played the blacklister. How about this, which I think better utilizes the source: "John Waters, who played himself, and Julian Sands, who played a corporate spy out to take revenge on Reddington, appeared in the season conclusion." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• 6th paragraph: Would you mind if I re-wrote the discussion of the Stacy Keach character?

• 7th paragraph: Stevens got his big time after being promoted to the lead enemy of the season, where he departed. However, he was still nominated for the 47th Saturn Awards for best guest starring role. The source (ref114) only states that Stevens was nominated for a Saturn, so please remove the first sentence, unless you can find a source that supports it.

• • Done here. I think my rewriting, the recap and the episode itself as refs should be enough. Eagowl 05:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• I personally don't like short paragraphs, so I highly recommend combining the 1st and 2nd and 3rd and 4th paragraphs. I won't hold up this article's promotion if you don't, though, so doing so is up to you.

• I changed the wording in the Broadcast section to past tense because for MOS reasons. I also wrote out the season numbers. If you disagree with those changes, please revert them.

• • Actually, supporting cast and broadcast are the sore spots of the article, as nothing in practice may count as reliable sources here. Wuth supporting cast, there are literally no resources by which the recurring actors' movement can be traced, while everything provided in the article actually fails MOS:INUNIVERSE. In broadcast, meanwhile, the arrival of the series to Netflix and other broadcasters in not at all covered, and the search involves lots of translation to foreign languages and too much time. After all, if new seasons won't stop coming, soon it would become not up-to-date, as it was before I started editing it. Could you please give me recommendations how to re-write these two sections so to avoid these maintenance troubles? Eagowl 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • Hmm, the above didn't occur to me, with my limited experience with TV articles. It's my philosophy that if a technically non-reliable source has to be used to support information in an article, it can and should be used, within limits. For example, I don't think that social media and blacklisted (har-har) sources should ever be used. I think it's fine for GA. I can see the problem about the content regarding broadcasts. I have two options for you: (1) suck it up and keep updating it as needed; and (2) simply remove the content. One way to keep #1 manageable is to state, "As of [this date]..." Whatever you choose to do won't affect this GAN, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Critical response section:

• 3rd paragraph: He called the series "outstanding and inventing", believing that until as proper example as The Blacklist exists, television broadcasting remains effective for its owners. This sentence is awkwardly worded and unclear. The source Could you please clarify it?

• 5th paragraph: The eighth season was slated by Brian Lowry, previously responding positively to the series. I think you mean that Lowry panned the 8th season? If so, how about this: "Brian Lowry panned the eighth season, despite previously responding positively to the series." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

More prose review:

• Publications section: 2nd paragraph needs a source.

• City hunt section, 3rd paragraph: The source (ref185) didn't say anything about "exclusive merchandise", so I removed the phrase.

• Spin-off section, 3rd sentence, 3rd paragraph: It aired in the same Thursday slot as The Blacklist, with the latter taking a break and departing Eggold for the spin-off. This sentence is unclear and awkwardly written. I assume that you mean that The Blacklist didn't air the week the spin-off aired and that Eggold had already departed. Please clarify. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation review

Many of your refs have old access dates. I recommend going through them, checking if they're still live, and update the access dates. If you find any dead links, you can often find them in the Wayback Machine. There's nothing in the GA criteria that requires this, so it won't affect promotion, but I highly recommend it anyway.

@Figureskatingfan: I've dealt with almost all your suggestions for the article:

1. I've changed awkward wording in the 3rd paragraph (about COVID) to more understandible. Feel free to change it if it's still poorly written I felt it would be too lengthy to write the episode numbers by words, so I decided to use numbers instead.
2. I've checked all the refs to see if they're unaccessible and actually found and replaced some dead kinks.
3. Still, I hesitate on whether to do something with information about season renewals. I've looked at other TV-related GAs and FAs about long-running series and all do not include such imformation. However, if it's done, the Development section would become really short. Wouldn't that affect the promotion?
4. Everything else I'll work on a bit later. Waiting for the second part of your review.

Also, could you please take a look at my sandbox, where I've been developing some changes to the article's lead section and reception, with some other minor improvements. Most of them are MOS-related, which is among the criteria reviewed, yet I would like to implement these changes sometime later. Eagowl 12:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eagowl, yes I will do all of that. I'm on vacation right now and mostly away from my computer this week, so it may take me a while to get to it and to continue with the prose and source reviews. Please be patient with me; it may be another week before I'm able to do it. Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation review (con't)

• Refs42, 55: YouTube videos are generally not regarded as reliable sources. I'm sure you can find the same information elsewhere, so please do so.
  • I've tried to search something about it, but the some things Spader said on Fallon and Meyers interviews (like the thing about his hair and filming of the 8th season) are not replaceable by more reliable sources than the interviews themselves. Will episode citations work here better? Eagowl 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • As per my personal philosophy stated above, I will AGF that you've done your best and that the interviews are justified. Yes, use the episode citations; I also suggest that you include when the statements occur in the episode (i.e., "event occurs at...").

• I kinda bring this up above: I think that you can do a better job at utilizing your sources. Your choices of what to use and what not to use are adequate for a GA, but I think that you could be more comprehensive and include more information.

• Thomsen continued his role as Alexander Kirk, Liz's presumed father, who has been holding her hostage. He quit in the first half of the season. The source (ref96) states that Kirk kidnapped Red. It also doesn't state that Thomsen "quit" the series, but that he might or might not have been killed off. You should reflect this.

• In November 2018, it was revealed that Coy Stewart would play Vontae Jones, an imprisoned junior whom Reddington teaches to survive behind bars. There's some text–source integrity issues here. The source (ref108) doesn't name the character and it doesn't state that Red taught him. It only states that he was a young man unfairly imprisoned.

• Ref105: Twitter is not considered a reliable source, plus it's broken. Question: whose bodyguard, Townsend's or Red's?

• Final sentence, 10th paragraph: Supporting stars section: needs a ref.

• Filming locations and technique section, 1st paragraph: Filming also took place in the New York City outskirts. Needs a ref.

• Sony divisions: 1st paragraph needs a ref.

• However, after a transfer from Modern Times Group to Sony, the broadcast was ceased: needs ref. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eagowl:, I've gone a little further now that I'm back from my vacation and will do more (and finally finish) today. Thanks for your patience with me. I'm fine with the changes you've made; it's much clearer now. MOS states that you only spell out numbers that are over ten, so what you've done is fine.

I don't think that cutting the Development section will affect this article's GA-worthiness. It'll still be long and developed (har-har) enough, as other TV series GAs are.

Re: your sandbox: I haven't looked at it closely, but if you implement your changes before or shortly after I'm finished with this review, let me know and I'll take a look. This article will be continually developed until the series ends, but it doesn't matter, at least not until someone asks for a WP:GAR. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to notify you, I've transferred some paragraphs from my sandbox to Plot section (most of it), Cast and characters (about Tawfiq) and Filming. I recommend checking them out. Eagowl 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I've seen the sections you added and are fine with them. Nice work overall; I appreciate your openness to my suggestions and your patience with how long it's taken to complete this review. A fun article about an enjoyable show. Once you address everything, I will pass this to GA. My regrets for the the extensiveness of this review, but I believe that it'll make a difference and eventually help it go even further, possibly to FA-status. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Another notification, I've came up with a bit more comprehensive table where the awards by establishments (more serious, with media coverage, etc.) and by magazines (mostly polls) are separated and all needed citations included. I think you should have a look. Eagowl 05:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Cancellation

Hello. I think we have to stop the review for at least a week. New details came out that the series is due to end. We'd better wait until there are more proper news about the final season so we can include them into the article. I will also be unable to continue as I'm leaving for a week. Sorry for inconvenience, but please be patient with me as I've been with you. Eagowl 21:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And I was busy last week getting caught up after my trip, so it worked out, anyway. I think that the content you've added about the cancellation (darn!) is fine; you would've had to update it with information about the plot and other things after the tenth season anyway, which would've been long after this GAN. (I do think that if you were to submit it to FAC, you should wait until after the end of the series.)

@Figureskatingfan, I'm back from my unexpected leave and no further information about the tenth season except its press releases appeared, so I can assume we may continue the review. And here I must say I've worked on and figured out all your suggestions and recommendations.

• I've uploaded the image of Boone and added some more information I could extract on Elizabeth Keen part, please take a look and edit it if you consider something needs to be done. However, I decided we'd better not add more pictures of actors invited to play Red (I tested it out and it came up short, the section became overloaded), Sutherland was the most sufficient and that's it.
• You may also look at some changes in critical response section, ovewhelming RT material was put in a compact table alongside Metacritic first season ratings.
• The materials introduced in your both reviews were implemented to the article. I'm sorry I hadn't noticed your offer to rewrite Stacy Keach's discussion, so of course you are free to do it as you wish. Others seem fine.

Also, I have some questions about the article that I wanted to ask you since the start of the review and I think this may be the best time for it. I will sincerely appreciate your help in these.

• The front image (the one in the infobox) doesn't appear in the search page and the desktop preview. Can this issue be fixed somehow?
• The second season timeslot in the ratings table always bothered me as it's been a part of many edit disputes caused to the page. They usually add Luther Braxton slot (Sunday after SB) to the table, although it is stressed in a note below the table. How would you recommend regulating that?

I hope you haven't lost me. Thanks, Eagowl | 12:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that the changes you've made thus far are good, but you haven't addressed all my comments. For example, my question about Gerard's character in the Supporting cast section wasn't answered. Also, you still need to go through the refs and make sure they're consistent, with access dates and such. I know this is a lot of work, but please go through my comments and address them; if you disagree, please state so and why. I went ahead and rewrote the Keach paragraph; you'll see that I tried to better mine the sources and reflect what they stated about the episodes in question.

@Figureskatingfan, I'm almost done with refreshing references. Only foreign sites are left now, and I'm going to finish them off in next two days. Now please take a look and let me know if something is still incorrect, inaccurate or poorly written. Eagowl | 11:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please ask me any questions; I'm here to help improve this article, because I believe that with work it has FA-potential. I'm sorry I can't help about the infobox image; way above my paygrade. It certainly wouldn't affect this article's promotion. I think you've done as much as you can regarding the edit disputes you mention. Watch out of it and revert it as they happen, I guess. Good work thus far, best as you continue, and let me know how else I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here I've got two more questions for now. I hope you know what to do here:

Looking at the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Stunts page, I noticed that the series carries the record of most nominations for the award (which, of course, was covered only by Wikipedia, no other sources). How could I reflect the fact in the article?

While looking through the references, I saw that sometimes there are no character descriptions in the sources, despite they are in the article. Can I cite the descriptions by adding episode citation? Eagowl | 11:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that you've done a great job addressing everything. We're very close. Once we resolve these last two issues, I think we'll be good to go. Thanks for your patience with how long it's taken.

1st question: This is such a sticky subject. If you look at the source, your conjecture is correct, but that's what it is. Remember, we're only supposed to report what the sources have said. If you put it in a note, though, it won't affect this GAN. I can't promise that other editors will do the same, so you may need to change it if anyone else notices and requests it.

2nd question: Personally, I think this is up for interpretation. I recommend that you re-read MOS:TVCAST and make your own decision. I will accept whatever you decide. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked it all up again, and I decided neither of these should be used. With the first one, yes, it just would be inappropriate as a note, and unreferenced in any other form. In MOS, I've found nothing on the nessecity of the second, but overwhelming episode citations, as I see, wouldn't be needed, unless the descriptions could become a subject of subsequent rewriting. Eagowl | 05:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this response. Are we done then? If so, I'll happily promote this article to GA. Good luck and best wishes as you move forward to other great things. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan I think if there are no questions from your side, then we're done. Thank you for your patience while promoting the article, I sincerely appreciate what you've done to it! I hope you too will proceed to other up-and coming good and featured articles. Check in later this year, as in June I'm going to start my next job on this one. I hope for future cooperation with you. All the best, Eagowl (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Hello! Has anything gone wrong with the promotion? I thought the review is over, and the article would be promoted soon, but nothing has happened since your latest comment and my latest reply. Do you have further questions to the article? If so, please state them so I could address them. If the process of promoting needs more time, it's okay. Anyway, please let me know if something's happened. (By the way, all references are updated now to 2023). Eagowl | talk | 01:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Eagowl, no I was waiting for your response to my check-in if you thought you needed to do more, then time got away from me. My apologies. I will go now and pass this thing! ;) Congrats and best to you for whatever's next. Please consider me an ally and let me know how I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this! If you will need any help from me, you can contact me any time in the future and I'll try to help you as well. Eagowl | talk | 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)