Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2019 [1].

A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a season two episode of the American dramedy Ugly Betty. A loose adaptation of the Colombian telenovela Yo soy Betty, la fea, the show is about a young Latina woman who works at the fashion magazine MODE even though she does not fit their expectations of beauty and style. This particular episode is about the wedding of Bradford Meade and Wilhelmina Slater and Ignacio Suarez's United States citizenship ceremony. Victoria Beckham guest-stars as Wilhelmina's maid of honor who steals attention from the wedding, and her Spice Girls nickname (Posh Spice) is referenced in the title. The initial broadcast was viewed by 10.9 million viewers, and the episode was well received by critics. The scenes about Ignacio's citizenship ceremony attracted attention from academic scholars.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. I have done FACs on television episode articles in the past, but I would like to continue to grow as an editor through constructive feedback. I hope that this nomination encourages other editors to work on television episode articles, and maybe even bring them through the FAC process too. The above article had a wonderful GAN review and a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher

Support My comments were resolved in the prior nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Kailash

and the show's 30th episode overall - I'd prefer series as show (although more widely used) is informal.

I do not believe one is more formal or informal than the other. I have revised it accordingly though. 05:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please be consistent in naming Victoria Beckham. Some places you use her first name, some her last name.

I used Beckham's first name in the "Plot" section alone as I had to refer to every character by their first name to avoid confusion as their multiple characters from the same families (i.e. Meades and Suarezs) and I used her last name in the rest of the article as refer to the writers and actors by their last names. I hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did spot one stray Beckham in the "Plot" section that I changed to Victoria to keep that section consistent. However, if you think that first names should be used throughout the entire article for consistency, then I can revise that as I do understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the episode still seems to be available, I don't think the plot summary needs a source. WP:TVPLOT says, "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources."

In the past, I have been told either way. I have removed the references for now, but I will add it again if another user really believes it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many refs use "publisher" instead of "website" as they should. Template:Cite web says, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." Please replace wherever necessary.

That is strange, because that is the way that I have always done it in my past FACs? Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed this part, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Video... or do you mean Prime Video?

Revised. It is annoying how they changed titles for things lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's all from me. Only proofreading remains, but I'm sure there are more experienced users to do that. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed everything. I have provided an explanation for the Victoria Beckham comment and I will have to look into the publisher/website citation further. Thank you for bringing it up, but I just find it a little weird that I have not received any corrections about it in my past GANs/FACs or work in general. Either way, I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the citations according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My comments have been addressed. I too noticed Victoria Beckham referred to by her surname in the plot, therefore I asked you to maintain a consistent format. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Homeostasis07

Hi @Aoba47: I'll come back to the 'Plot' section later, which I think could use some tightening up. It's a peculiar quandary with FA articles: plot sections must be "comprehensive" while also limited to 500 (in most cases) words, which can result in some jarring juxtapositions, which I see here in lines such as "Betty refuses to attend Ignacio's United States citizenship ceremony and feels guilty about lying to her boss Daniel Meade about Wilhelmina Slater's affair with her bodyguard Dwayne to get Ignacio a visa. Betty's sister Hilda recommends Betty tell the truth." "The truth" could be more explicitly described at this point (I remember watching this episode when it was first aired, and I have a vague memory of Wilhelmina blackmailing Betty—"keep my secret and I'll help your father get his green card"). But Hilda's name is only mentioned this one time in the entire article, so removing the latter line would be no big loss. It's not a big deal, but I see a couple of other instances where things could be tightened up a bit as well. I'll try to expand tomorrow.

Thank you for the comment, and I can see your point. I will remove the Hilda part because she is not important to this particular episode. I look forward to your comments on this section. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But otherwise, I have two minor points:

"In 2008, Beckham was rumored to be returning for regular guest appearances in future episodes.^[11][12]" But this didn't happen, right? Might be a good idea to conclude the suggestion. This 2016 source confirms she only ever appeared in one episode, so maybe incorporate that along with the text, "although further guest appearances from Beckham did not materialize.", or something to that effect.

Thank you for the source, and I have added it the article with the part suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seems to be an error in the sentence "Wang wore the dress for three weeks; she said it did not wrinkle during the shooting.". But the source says "The dress also survived the long shoot. 'I wore that dress for three weeks and it didn't wrinkle,' [Vanessa] Williams says. 'That's why Vera Wang's the best.'" So it was Williams referring to the dress she wore on set, not Wang. I'm sure someone more familar with fashion would disagree - and I readily admit there was probably some ingenuity to an elaborate wedding dress not wrinkling after being worn every day for 3 weeks - but I don't really consider that fact to be particularly noteworthy, as it stands. I'd consider removing this sentence entirely, although if some sources can be found indicating its note-worthiness, I'd be happy to back down.

Thank you for the comment. I am not sure how the sentence got to Wang wearing the dress instead of Williams lol. I have removed the sentence so I agree that it is not particularly notable, and since Williams wore the dress for the next episode, the three week shooting time probably also covers that as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this is FA-quality, both prose and source wise. During my review, I spot-checked at least half the sources included, and everything in the article is backed up by its citation, and I'm happy with the quality of sources. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments so far. I look forward to your suggestions for the "Plot" section as I always struggle a little with that part for a television episode article. I find it a little difficult to summarize not only the episode's plot, but previous storylines and character backstories in a concise manner. It is always good to find ways to tighten the prose. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a good day so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main advice would be to watch out for extended sentences, as there are several unrelated story points crammed into single sentences for no apparent reason—as far as I could read. Also, don't be afraid to use "him" or "her" when it's blatantly obvious which character the prose is referring to, because there's an abundance/repetition of names. I'd also suggest breaking up the paragraphs: since the section is currently 2 fairly large paragraphs when – to me – there's an obvious break in plot devices which is more suited to a smaller, 3-paragraph section (Paragraph 1, Betty/Ignacio/blackmail; Paragraph 2, wedding preparations/character developments; Paragraph 3, Wedding and aftermath). I hope this helps, because I can't really expand much more now. I'll be able to be more thorough/specific tomorrow, if needs be. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I have revised the plot section to hopefully address those points. Your comment will actually help me a lot when I edit and revise articles in the future as you point how I could improve my prose in general. I hope you are having a good week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of minor changes to the prose in that section still but, yeah, I'm pretty damn happy with the prose as it is now. I'd go so far as to say it's a perfect summation of the plot, even. ;) Happy to support the article for promotion to FA on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Licenses and uses seem OK to me. ALT text is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Not sure why website The Futon Critic is not in italics when Digital Spy is.
I would wiki-link Emmys.com.
Sources reliability checks out for me. FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thank you for the review. I have added a link for Emmys.com and I have italicized The Futon Critic. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. FrB.TG (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo

Support – I could not see any issue with this article. Great work!

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the random ping, but I was wondering if I could get a status update for this? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we'll take a look the next time one of us runs through the list. Thanks for your patience. --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and apologies again for the ping. It is always good to have as many people look over a nomination as possible to improve the article as much as possible. I was just curious about it. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the second ping, but I was just curious about the status of this nomination. It has been a little over a week since the last message, and the nomination has already passed both an image and a source review and has been supported by seven editors. I hope that I do not sound like a pain, but I was just wondering about it particularly after a few FACs have recently been promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ChrisTheDude

The only thing I could pick up is that you have the quote "Everyone at the wedding will be expecting skinny, beautiful Posh to show up", but there is no mention anywhere in the article that "Posh Spice" is a nickname for Beckham, so a reader unfamiliar with her might be confused by the quote and to whom exactly the first sentence of it refers. Clarifying the nickname in the article would also help explain the joke in the episode title - my understanding (being British) is that "posh" is not a commonly-used word in the US. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comment. I kept reading over that part, and you are correct in that someone may have no idea what "Posh" means in this context. I have put the information in an end note because I was not sure of a way to seamlessly put it in the body of the article; if you have any suggestions on how to better represent the information, then please let me know :). Aoba47 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I think you could probably insert it into the actual text like so: "In June 2007, producers requested Victoria Beckham, nicknamed "Posh Spice" during her time as a member of the Spice Girls, to appear as herself in a wedding-theme episode". It seems a bit lost as a footnote........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Good point. I have done as you suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheDoctorWho

I reviewed this article when it was a WP:GAN and any of my issues/comments were addressed with that. This is a great article and I'm more than happy to support it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv

The article doesn't explain who Vera Wang is. I suggest the addition: As well as making a cameo appearance, American fashion designer Vera Wang designed the wedding dress.

Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main actors don't appear to be credited anywhere; instead the actor names are just used without introduction (e.g. Vanessa Williams). Either add them in parentheses after their character's first mention in the article / plot summary (e.g. "Betty Suarez (America Ferrera)") or introduce them under "Production".

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... appearance, was released ... – Comma shouldn't be there.

Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alsonominated – Should be two words.

Separated. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Optional: redlink the (notable) 39th NAACP Image Awards.

Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are weirdly placed, in the middle of a section about critical reviews. I'd move it above "Critical reception" entirely, to be the first paragraph of "Reception".

Moved. Aoba47 (talk)

The section "Racial analysis" has prose that can be improved. I'm particularly not a fan of the sentence: They argued Bradford's dismissal of Betty as "some assistant" had "very quickly dispel[led] any faith in the reciprocal protections promised by the American Dream embodied by the citizenship ceremony". This sentence needs to explain Betty and Ignacio's contrasting opinions about the government and their reasoning. Looking at the source, it seems that the author is making the point that their lack of faith and faith (respectively) in the system swap during the course of this episode. Ignacio gains faith through getting citizenship, even though he did so outside of the established system, and Betty loses it because she is "reduced and marginalized" as an assistant, and gets fired unfairly in a violation of the "reciprocal protections" promised by the American Dream. This argument needs to be conveyed properly in this article, whether it's through quotes or rewriting (or a mixture). Then I think the mention of the American Dream here and in the next quote needs a bit more context/analysis/depth to it, as at the moment it's not really clear how it links to the episode's storyline or its themes.

Good point. I have revised this part, but let me know if more work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Strachan sentence doesn't mention the actual episode this article is about. How did Strachan see "A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding" in relation to the theme he identified in the season?

Strachan talks about "A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding" in the rest of his part on Ugly Betty so I thought the line may be relevant, but I have removed it since the connection is not 100% clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to look at sources, images etc. but I see from the comments above that these have already been thoroughly checked. I'll be happy to support in regards to prose if the comments above are addressed. — Bilorv (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything, but if there is anything else that requires additional work, please let me know. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! The Racial analysis section now looks up to FA standard, which was my only non-nitpick concern, and my other comments have all been addressed. I made the tiniest edit here and I'm delighted to support promotion to FA (taking the source spotchecks and image rationales on good faith, as others above me have reviewed them). — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! You have helped to greatly improve that particular section and I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damien Linnane

In the lead I'd consider describing who Bradford Meade and Wilhelmina Slater are, I.e 'the wedding of publisher Bradford Meade and former supermodel Wilhelmina Slater'

Added. Although I used creative director for Wilhelmina as she has that job at this point in the show. Aoba47 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'and Becki Newton's cover of Kelis' 2003 single "Milkshake"' - I'd consider giving some context in the lead about why she's covering the song, but up to you.

Added. Aoba47 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wilhelmina having an affair with her bodyguard helping get Ignacio a visa? I'm confused about the connection.

I have added more information to hopefully clarify this point. Let me know if more information is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Prior to the ceremony, Wilhelmina has Victoria locked in a confessional booth.' - this leaves me wanting to know more. Did she manage to get out?

Victoria's final scene is her yelling and knocking on the door to get someone's attention; she presumably is stuck in the booth for the remainder of the episode, and it is never directly addressed even by the follow-up episode which is a direct continuation to this one. Here is a link to the YouTube video of Victoria's scenes in the episode. Despite the heavy promotion of her guest appearance and her name in the episode's title, she has a relatively minor role. Please let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I found. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane: Thank you for the help! If there is anything else that needs improvement or clarification, then please let me know. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Well done on another fantastic article. Happy to support. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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