Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:49, 26 May 2009 [1].

House (TV series)

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Music26/11 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria; I have worked on this article for a long time, and now I think it's ready, it is modeled after television series FAs such as Lost and The Wire.--Music26/11 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can spend more time on this article in a few days, but I found this on first glance;

  • Lead section: "During the 2007–08 United States television season, the series was the most-watched scripted program and the third-most-watched program, behind American Idol and Dancing with the Stars."
  • "U.S. television ratings" subsection: Table ranks the series as the seventh-most-watched program during the 2007–08 United States television season.DocKino (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understand how that can be confusing, the show was seventh overall, but the shows that topped the list were Dancing With the Stars and American Idol Monday and Tuesday broadcasts and endresults. If you check out the ref it will be a little bit more clear, if you want me to reword or remove it's fine with me.--Music26/11 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to remove it, but it does need to be reworded to eliminate the confusion. We shouldn't need to check a ref or a link for the article's text to be internally coherent. Perhaps something like: "During the 2007–08 United States television season, the series was the most-watched scripted program. It ranked seventh in ratings [or viewership], trailing only various iterations of American Idol and Dancing with the Stars."DocKino (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by NuclearWarfare

Thank you kindly.--Music26/11 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - FAC 3 inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you wish, I have removed the image. I'm very sorry we couldn't reach an agreement. In turn I very much hope that you would strike your oppose and consider supporting. Thank you.--Music26/11 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the group shot was appropriate, judicious, and very informative to the reader. It falls well within the parameters of fair use criterion #1 and the overarching rationale of our policy. It should be restored. The comparison to a gallery of voice actors, whose looks are by definition irrelevant to an animated show, is inapt. The use of the cast shot as appeared in this article has been well-established as an element in articles that demonstrate our best work.DocKino (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Fasach on this one. It's not relevant to the article. Just about each one of those characters, if not all of them (which beyond House, and maybe Wilson, none are really that notable outside of the show..but that's beyond the point), have their own articles. That means that they all have pictures that a reader can see. I cannot see how a group, promotional shot (it wasn't like they were even in their Dr. garb...not that that would really make it better) really helps the reader understand the characters. If there was something special about the image itself, ok, but it's some generic cast shot and since this isn't a "Characters of House" page, we really don't need one here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I have to brush up on my NFCC policies, but my thinking was more in line with DocKino's. I do, however, see Fasach and BigNole's point of view. The article doesn't particularly need the image, but no more than any article needs a Fair Use image. Moving the image to List of characters in House (if that even exists) might not be a bad idea. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 03:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Need" is not part of the language of our fair use policy. The use of the image should be analyzed according to the actual language of our policy:
  • Can the erasure of a single image that shows the nine recurring cast members of the TV series that is the topic of the article reasonably be claimed "to support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application"? Obviously not.
  • Does the use expose us to any plausible legal jeopardy? Obviously not.
  • Is the use "judicious" and is it supportive of "the development of a quality encyclopedia"? Obviously.
  • Is a free equivalent to this single, significantly informative image available? No.
  • Does the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Yes. Next to title and genre, the appearance of a TV series' cast members is about as basic as information gets about that series.
That is the test according to our policy. And this image passes by a fair margin.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we were going by the letter of the law (exactly what WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE say), then the image itself would have to "significantly increase the readers understanding". It doesn't. Personally, I think that's a bit obsessive with regard to staying in compliance with our non-free license, but my leeway is usually chilled with an image that is at least talked about directly in the text (there is nothing talking about the image in this text) and/or if the image itself is something special (i.e. maybe seeing it doesn't increase the understanding of what it is, but that doesn't change the fact that the image is notable just being that specific image), but there is nothing special about an image of the cast. Oh, and the page is List of House characters. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must strongly disagree with this position. Knowing what the cast of a TV series looks like constitutes major, essential information about that TV series. A reader who is reading an article about a given TV series should never have to leave that page and go to another article to acquire this basic information. In the absence of the cast image, this article now fails FAC #1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details..." The appearance of the recurring cast members is a major fact of a TV series, and the cast image should be returned to the article forthwith.—DCGeist (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. You cannot say that knowing what an actor looks like helps you understand what the show is about, especially when that image is a promotional image that would otherwise not even be associated with the show because they aren't in "character" getup to begin with. The physical appearance of an actor is not a "major fact", I think you are misinterpreting 1b on that account.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously wrong on this account, unless you live in that alternate universe that enjoys experiencing television with its eyes closed.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd agree one cast picture is a reasonable allowance - but the picture being used is not good, because it is simply the actors posing without their traditional garb or the like, and doesn't help. I agree in general these can be replaced, often with a group shot, but getting the full cast in one free image is very difficult (ala the exception we use for ex-band photos). --MASEM (t) 04:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of characteristic garb, each cast member is wearing a T-shirt with a catchphrase that is particularly relevant to their character. It is at least as informative, if not more so, than a standard cast-in-character group shot. By the same token the article would be improved by a sentence or two discussing this image, assuming there is WP:V-quality sourcing for such a discussion.—DCGeist (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the top level reader of this article, the catchphrases mean nothing. I'm not against a cast picture, but it should be appropriate to the show without having a deep understanding of it. Doing a google image search for House cast pictures, there's plenty for earlier seasons that fall into the line, but nothing with the cast of the current seasons, which may need to be a valid compromise. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, a group cast photo from one of the series' first three seasons would, at present, be representative of the majority of the series' run to date, so yes, that would be arguable as a compromise. However, the existing photo is simply more informative: it shows the major characters from the first three seasons plus the major characters who have joined in the most recent two seasons. Furthermore, it does not require a deep understanding of the show (the primary information conveyed is the cast's appearance); rather it can serve to enhance understanding of the show, if the reader cares to peruse the catchphrases.—DCGeist (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to argue that the picture is necessary to show the fictional characters of the show (and thus cannot be replaced simply by pointing to free images of the actors) a promo shot that breaks that fiction (in this case, the tshirt pic that is being question) is pushing the bounds of NFCC. I'd personally rather see the "core" House cast, in role, and discuss the 4-5 additions as needed, instead of trying to push this one through; this also helps to add in the semi-recurring cast such as Tritter and Cutthroat Bitch without needed them in a cast picture. Yes, it's stupid of FOX not to provide the same type of promo images for this season as for the other seasons, but we have to work with what we have. (In general, I see no problem with a ensemble cast pic as one NFC image for a TV show; that seems completely reasonable are generally the bounds of "irreplaceable" as you have to get the cast together and in character for the same picture to be effective in the text.) --MASEM (t) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're arguing at all that it can be replaced it clearly isn't that necessary to begin with. With the image gone, you're not going to find readers coming to the page going "how come you don't have a cast image?" Because it isn't that important. You already have pictures of Hugh Laurie, Sean Leonard, and other relevant images to the text. Just scrolling down, it's the only section that doesn't have some sort of image or aesthetic attached to it, which to me is a breather more than anything. This page is already bombarded with stuff (I say "bombarded" because this 93kb page contains more than 60kb of images and html code, as the readable prose is only about 28.8 kb), and the loss of one image that does not particularly add any new depth to the page, but simply continues to smother it, is not a loss at all. That kind of brings me to a new question. Why do we have a "Casting" section and a "Cast and characters" section? The former seems to be real world info, while the latter seems to be used to regurgitate plot info (minus a couple instances like the announcement for Kutner's death and the Vogler stuff). Since we have List of House characters, why don't we just allow that page to handle that plot info, and move the link to it up to the "Casting" section along with the relevant real world info about anyone cast for the show. P.S. the 8th requirement for non-free images per the policy is: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Then, if you look at the guideline on non-free use for images, it says: "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." - The image has no critical commentary on it. There is nothing in the section that discusses the way the characters look.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone who opposes the removal of the image please remember that, as the series is still in production, the cast will still be doing promotional junkets where photos can be taken. And even if the press conferences aren't public, there are still ways to get freely-licensed images of the cast (check the 'Watch with Kristin' channel on Flickr in September, for example). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as for cutting the plot stuff, remember per summary style that the sub-articles should still be summarized in the parent one (such that a reader can still become reasonably familiar with all of the topic just by reading this single article standalone), so the character section in this is necessary. But back to the replaceable aspect: yes, letter of the law, the cast picture is replaceable as all the people are alive and still look as they do on the show. But we have made allowances for such cases in the past, generally as the likelihood of getting such photos diminishes. (We do the same for single individuals who are known to stay absent from the public eye). The editors of this page should be on the look out for such opportunities, but even if you consider to core five actors, they all are still difficult to get a hold of. As for significance, which yes, is a questionable point, this is why I have imparted that the suggested cast shot is bad and that one that shows the actors in garb per the show is more appropriate here. House (the characters) dresses and acts completely differently from the other doctors, typically all dressed up in lab coats and proper outfits beneath them, and the older cast photos of the core 5 actors easily show this. This point can be explained in the text. So that's why I think a different image will meet #8 but not the one currently offered. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That just brings us to the basic argument originally, which is, "Why do we need the image?" I can somewhat understand an image of House, because he's not the typical doctor. Everyone else is though. I don't need to see a picture of Olivia Wilde to understand 13 better, to any degree. I don't need to see a picture of Omar Epps to understand that Foreman is Black, because the word "African American" already gives me that image. I cannot see any justification for the image beyond "To show what the cast looks like", which, when you take into consideration the key criteria for all nonfree images (critical commentary = that there is no discussion of how these characters look on the show), that makes the image decorative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The aspect that House in not your typical doctor is what would be exmplified by an appropriate cast shot; sure, we could use a single shot of the House character as non-free, but since we're trying to minimize non-free at the same time, adding other core cast members does not increase the "harm" that has already been done by including the picture of the character House. The cast shot that I'm thinking of (not the one that was originally in the article) would be something like this (which comes from this page) which shows House's contrast to the other doctors on the show and which is part of his character.
I'm not saying we include an NFC image just because the present article is surprisingly free of NFC and thus could take one, but that if we are injecting an NFC image, we should make it do as much work as possible. Here, identifying not only the primary character House, but other core actors/characters and the defining characteristics of the House character relative to the other doctors make a single NFC image do double duty. (The t-shirt one does not identify House's unique aspects outside of the cane and the taglist, and thus is a very weak choice). I'm pretty sure that this is a reasonable use under #8, leave the issue of possible free replacement still in the air. I compare this aspect to something like on Firefly (TV series), where there is a 8 of 10 principle actor free image, so I can't rule this out for House. I looked through Flickr and don't see any user-taken photographs that appear to apply (I get stuff like this which based on the profile is difficult to tell if it is really user-created, and thus not worth the effort to chase down trying to get them to release it CC-BY), but then I find images like this from bricky dot forumfree dot net/?t=33081753 (spam filtered) which suggest maybe there's a possibility? It's hard to separate the Getty Images stuff from actual user created stuff, and given that House is a more high profile show than Firefly, I'm not seeing the ease of getting a freely-made cast shot together, which is why I'd give the benefit of the doubt to using one NFC to demonstrate the cast on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of this discussion is a bit unclear to me, without the image the page looks fine to me. Your comments are clear enough, so I think there's nothing left to be done. However, this discussion appears to end suddenly, and I don't know what to do about the image, do you all agree with the article's current state? Or should the image be placed back?--Music26/11 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple small copyedits to the first main text subsection,"Conception". There are two substantive issues I've identified:

  • "Instead, there would be a scar on House's leg, which would cause later problems and necessitate the use of a cane." This seems strange. The scar itself is the cause of "later problems" and "necessitates the use of a cane"? Isn't the scar, like the cane and the other problems, itself the result of some earlier trauma? Please reword as appropriate.
  • In the first paragraph, you say Shore, Jacobs, and Attanasio "pitched House" to FOX. Fine. In the second paragraph, you describe how in the development process, the show became "more focused upon the title character". Fine. But then in the third paragraph, you say, "The show was created under the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain." Huh? When did that happen? Was the show actually pitched to FOX with the title House or not? There wasn't a "title character" until the title became House. Was it House, then Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain, then House again? Or was it an untitled medical procedural concept (without, thus, a title character), then Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain, then House? Or what? Please verify the relevant information and rewrite at the appropriate points accordingly.

Leaning to Oppose Sorry, but this is far from fixed--and, frankly, I'm finding that the prose in this article is just not close enough to FA quality.

So, here's where things stand now: An untitled concept was pitched. Then "the idea of a curmudgeonly title character was added"--meaning whatever that character is named, that'll be the title of the show. Then we have some references to the lead character "House", so we can assume that's what the show is now called. And then this: "The show was created under the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain." Still! This is completely incoherent.

Other issues: Take the whole passage, "The show was created under the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain. Shore's ideas for House are inspired by the writings of Berton Roueché, a The New Yorker staff writer who chronicled intriguing medical cases between 1940 and 1990." (Leave aside "a The New Yorker" for the moment--you do see the problem there, right?) You can't just switch us from one title to another without a segue--At what point was Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain dropped? When did House replace it? Further, as (apparently) a basic source of the show's concept, the entire reference to Roueché is misplaced--it should almost certainly come earlier.

And this: "House would be confined to a wheelchair, but FOX declined this interpretation (for which the crew was later grateful)." The construction around "would" is awkward, especially as it echoes "would" in the preceding sentence. "Declined" is used nonidiomatically (try "rejected"). "Interpretation" is simply misused (try "idea" or "concept"). I was going to ask why the crew were grateful, but then I decided to check the ref and discovered that it was one of the executive producers who expressed her gratitude. An executive producer is not part of a show's "crew". And I see below there's already been another catch of a misunderstood source. Sorry, but I think it would be best to take this article back to the shop for some serious bodywork before it's brought here again.DocKino (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, thanks for your comments. Second of all, I have changed the section quite a bit, and I think it lives up to your comments now. However, your final statement "I think it would be best to take this article back to the shop for some serious bodywork before it's brought here again", sounds like there's more than just the conception section you are unhappy with. If so, please inform me, cause I'm trying my best to keep everybody happy. Thank you.--Music26/11 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a stylistic point:

  • Fox Broadcasting Company is the full, formal name. But for the abbreviated name, you use "Fox" in the lead section and "FOX" in the main text. Please choose a single, consistent style.

I'll stop work for the moment while these edits (and the one I earlier identified) are done and, I hope, the cast image is restored as it should be.DocKino (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogcritics is a reliable source. Both Google News and Yahoo! News credit it as a news source ([11]), it is owned by Technorati, a popular search engine ([12]) and is referred to (as a news source) in various publications such as The Boston Globe ([13]) and The Los Angeles Times ([14]). It has also won various awards including a Bloggie Award ([15]) and it was named best media blog by Forbes Magazine ([16])--Music26/11 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is just a press release, the globe and times articles just quote it for color, so I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bordwell site is certainly reliable. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, the nominal coauthor of the cited essay (though it appears to be written entirely by Bordwell), are two of the most respected film scholars in the English-speaking world. They are the coauthors of highly regarded, widely distributed reference works such as Film Art: An Introduction and The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. The presentation of the site and the writing it contains are clearly intended to reflect and maintain Bordwell's professional reputation.
I'm more concerned with how this source is used. The article cites it as support for the following claim: that the walk-and-talk shooting technique was "made popular by Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme in television series such as Sports Night and The West Wing". Not only does Bordwell never mention Sorkin, he expressly refutes the notion that Schlamme innovated the walk-and-talk. Aside from many cinematic precedents, Bordwell—well down in the article—mentions two earlier TV series that employ walk-and-talk: "I’m no TV historian, but I think that this technique showed up on St. Elsewhere (1982-1988), and it’s definitely on display in ER (1994-)". (OR alert!! I have the St. Elsewhere First Season DVD set. Bordwell is right.) Let's see this fixed up.—DCGeist (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies indeed. I have reread the artilce, you're right. St. Elsewhere and ER are listed now too, which is great, because they are also medical dramas.--Music26/11 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose [Following issue resolved] Well, I've read the entire article just the way most of the people who it is our mission to serve would read it and, just like them, I'm left without a clue as to what most of the show's recurring cast looks like. This is unacceptable for a would-be Featured Article on a TV series. What the FAC process has brought us in this case is an article that now unquestionably fails FA criterion 1b. But, that's what happens when the first rationale of our fair use policy is willfully misinterpreted and the third rationale is completely ignored.—DCGeist (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the cast looks like is not a major fact of the article. It's a minor one, because what they look like has no bearing on the story. They all have character articles. I think opposing an article because it doesn't have a non-free image is not only a poor argument (sorry), but is selfishly putting Music2611 in a hard place because they have people opposing because the image is there, and now someone opposing because the image is not there. Since you seem to be the one primarily opposed to the idea of the image not being present, I think it is rather petty to oppose the article solely on those grounds, especially to what appears to be simply an oppose designed to get your way. The policy on non-free images is clear, the criteria for FA status is intentionally vague, yet specific since there is the criteria that you have to meet all relevant policies and guidelines (which includes WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE) - plus criteria #3 which is directly about image use, and specifically says in the criteria "Must meet WP:FUC".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole, you seem to be under the misapprehension that House is a radio show. Guess what, my friend, you're wrong. It's a TV show, and a central fact about any TV show, particularly a scripted series, is what the actors look like. It's unfortunate that you seem not to understand how television works and what people watch it for, but there you are. As for selfishly putting Music2611 in a hard place—yes, that's exactly what you and Fasach Nua need to apologize for and right now, too. Music2611 clearly worked hard, mindful of policy, to create an informative article that served our readers, and you have gone out of your way to subvert his hard work and manipulate him into accepting your distorted, nonsensical view of our free use policy. (I'm so sorry, was that language too harsh? Was it, to quote you, "selfish"? Was it, to quote you, "petty"? Aw, gee...)
So tell me, my selfish petty friend (those are friendly adjectives, right?), exactly who do you serve by erasing the faces of the cast? Do you serve our readers, by eliminating this rather central information? No. You obviously do them a disservice. Do you serve our lawyers, by eliminating content that would not provoke a legal issue in the next...say...estimating here...billion years? No. They would obviously laugh at your position if it ever came to their attention. Do you serve our contributors, by eliminating content they have carefully selected with an eye toward policy and an interest in—wait for it!—serving our readers? No. You've just wasted people's time and scoffed at their interest and investment of energy. Well done, my selfish petty friend.—DCGeist (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and here's another one for you. (By the way, good buddy, do you consider "hypocritical" as friendly an adjective as "selfish" and "petty"? Oh, I bet you do, good buddy.) On May 11, exactly 62 minutes after Music2611 offered a counterargument to Fasach Nua's objection—62 minutes—Fasach Nua, simply ignoring the counterargument as if it did not exist, !voted to oppose. But Fasach Nua is not "selfish" and "petty". Oh, no! And here I waited three-and-a-half days after Music2611 was driven into removing the judiciously chosen image, after other reviewers and I laid out arguments in support of the image's retention, to oppose—and yet you want to call my behavior "selfish" and "petty"? You're a helluva Wikipedian, good buddy.—DCGeist (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem that you have, you are saying that the look of the "characters" is important to the show. So please, explain how. What is it about the characters that we need to see? Why isn't there text next to where the image was that describes what they look like? Fasach and I have a policy on our side, you have nothing. The FA criteria specifically say you have to meet WP:FUC, and that is clear on the criteria for an image but the interpretation that #1b also includes having images that are not highly associated with the subject (i.e. this isn't like not including a picture of the Sistine Chapel in the Michelangelo article, as this is some random promo shot for an upcoming season they were having) - before you say so, when I say "highly associated" I mean an image that is itself special, or notable, not something that is a representation of the subject because a picture of House himself is clearly "associated" with the show, but I think you understand exactly what I mean when I say that. Just as well, I don't know how you can call me "selfish" and "petty", as I haven't made any choice in side of opposition or support based solely on the image's location - I've been discussing it, but you and Fasach are the only ones that have made "vote" simply because you disagree with how the image is used/unused. I'm also not Fasach, but it seemed that when the image discussion went stale, and you were the only one left wanting this image, and just after Music said he/she thought the page was fine without the image, you decided to oppose the page because it did not have the image. Your argument is that the lack of a non-free image, one that clearly fails WP:FUC (a policy), is the most important problem with this article and is justification alone to oppose. Seriously? Is there something special about this image? It's not the Mona Lisa, it's a random non-free image that had you never seen before and would never have thought about (not saying you wouldn't ask about an image, but saying that had you never known this one existed you wouldn't be fighting so hard for it) enough to oppose the article solely on its absence. I mean, the irony here is that your own page has the criteria for image usage, where it clearly says promotional images require critical commentary. You even highlight Fair-Use Criteria #8 ("Significance"), yet you continue to argue that the article would be horribly damaged without it? (No, I'm not saying you agree with them, but the fact that you have to stare at them all the time would at least make me assume that you know they are required and understand what they are). I don't know how much experience you have working with fiction articles and images (You peer reviewed Pulp Fiction two years ago, and used to be heavily into trying to save every non-free image, a lot for fictional topics, that you could, but much has changed since then and non free images have been cracked down on more), but non-free images (exception being the primary image of the article, typically found in the infobox of some kind) all have to have critical commentary, significance (which I find to be subjective, and if you can atleast explain why this specific image significant then I'm usually fine), and all the appropriate paper work filled out. Unfortunately, this image lacks critical commentary, and its significance is next to known. There is nothing special about this image; the fact that it could so easily be replaced by both free images and any 1000 other screenshots from the show proves that this specific image is not needed.
Yes, I think it's childish to oppose something after people disagree with you, but here is the difference between you and Fasach. Fasach is reading the policy on non-free images. They see that the image does not meet all of the criteria (and you have to meet every single one, this isn't a "best of.." thing). Fasach then opposed based on the idea that the image was still not meeting the criteria even after Music attempted to justify its use. I mean that sucks, because Fasach basically admits to not ever reading articles and just looking at images but that's their thing. My agreement with Fasach is based on the fact that the image fails to include critical commentary, and fails to indicate why it is needed. Then, there is a discussion about the image from multiple parties. You're arguing to keep it. When the consensus basically ends with this image not being appropriate for use (not that some other image wouldn't be better), you seem to say "fine, I'll just oppose based solely on the fact that I'm not getting the image". That's kind of childish. You haven't justified its use based on the criteria of non-free images (i.e. critical commentary and significance), you've basically said "I want it, readers want it, we should have it". If you cannot provide critical commentary for an image then you clearly cannot argue that it has any significance on the page, at least you cannot without actual evidence.
I think there are more problems with the article than some silly image (and to Music's credit, they are trying their hardest, and doing a good job, to answer all other issues that are brought up--and when I have the time to sit down and read the article word-for-word I'll be able to put up my review). But, to answer your first misassumption, no I don't think this is a radio show. But I also don't think that anyone really cares what the "cast" looks like in a show, and if they did they'd just click on their articles to see what they look like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery, and the fact remains that the image itself fails the policies we have in place for non-free images. There's no arguing around that right now. I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you, because you're set in your ways just as much as I am, so it's like debating with a brick wall (on both sides, I'm sure). There is no point in us continuing to get heated up about this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, reading this discussion I feel like a pong ball, constantly being hit back and forth. I would really like to participate in this discussion so I can please the both of you but I'm affraid pleasing the both of you is practically impossible (plus I'm affraid I will say something wrong, that will be thrown back at me later). At this point I think I would agree to most solutions simply to get everybody to strike their opposes. There is not much I can do except letting you know that I don't really care that much about one image because the page looks fine without it (although I can't see why Fasach hasn't struck it's oppose yet). Oh, and I'm a he by the way. Hopefully we can reach an agreement.--Music26/11 13:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I suggest you take the image discussions to the talk page of the FAC or the article itself, and stop putting poor Music (who is doing an excellent job here) in a hard spot. Work out the image issues somewhere else, because it really is unfair to the nominator to put him in this sort of spot. Image policy issues (which this seems to be about more than the article) need to be worked out elsewhere, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support if there would be more descriptive images, including one of House, the character, not just one of Laurie smiling. Also, I am a bit worried by the 10refs in a row of dubious sites in the DVD section; I know they are not referrencing much, but there are 10 of them... Nergaal (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which are you referring to? Amazon isn't "dubious". When you start trying to find Regions 2 and 4, it gets harder to find websites that don't look "dubious". EZY DVD appears to be like the Australian version of Best Buy (i.e. they have physical stores people can go to). I don't know about LoveFilm and DVDOrchard, this is the first I've seen those sites. Like I said, getting top-notch sources from regions 2 and 4 for DVD release can sometimes be hard (not justifying those sources, just explaining).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add that dates of releases for DVDs in specific regions is a far cry from dubious information that absolutely needs reliable sources to be included. Vendor sites of existing releases are acceptable (but not future ones). --MASEM (t) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a problem I stumbled across when the FAc was in an early stage. Someone kept on adding DVD releases to the page, I think the section is irrelevant because I don't think anybody would be interested in when exactly the DVD's were released. However, I gave in because I was trying to avoid an edit war and therefore the table remained. I have no trouble removing the upcoming DVD release refs, but I think the other ones are of a certain value to the article since other FAs or FLs don't even have references for the DVD releases (Brotherhood episodes, 30 Rock episodes, Lost episodes/The Wire). As for Nergaal's request for an image of the title character; I would have no problem adding one, but the above discussions are about an image of the cast, and I think if I add an image of House, I would enrage (maybe that's a bit extreme, but you get the point) the people who participated in the above discussions that wanted a cast photo.--Music26/11 15:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't think the DVD release info needed here, and I would almost recommend that instead of the large episode list there is now instead creating separate season articles which then the DVD information becomes relevant in, but that is neither there nor here w.r.t. to this FAC; the info is sourced, is not hurting the article in any way, and thus probably should stay until a better home is found. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Image
Sorry for the weird header, but I thought it would look weird to have a sub-header on a FAc page.
The non-free cast photo seems to be the biggest point of discussion; I didn't know what to do about it, however, when I counted the number of users that were against the image I could only find two users (Bignole and Fasach Nua), whereas there are 4 users who approve such an image (DocKino, DCGeist, NuclearWarfare, Masem. Note: I said approve, not all four of them think such an image is necessary). Since the users who don't want the image are outnumbered, a cast image should problably be added. Here is a quote from Masem (see above comments) that summarizes what a cast image should contain.

"The aspect that House in not your typical doctor is what would be exmplified by an appropriate cast shot; sure, we could use a single shot of the House character as non-free, but since we're trying to minimize non-free at the same time, adding other core cast members does not increase the "harm" that has already been done by including the picture of the character House."

This image doesn't really fit that description. However, all images that do fit the description do not have all nine cast members pictured. The full cast is only on the current image. However, other possibilities are: [17] (source), [18] (source) or as Masem proposed earlier [19] (source). Thank you for your time.--Music26/11 12:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though policy still dictates otherwise (sorry, breaking policy here means we might as well ignore it all the time), the best choice out of all of those is this one..or maybe this one (same people, just different angle). The reason being is that these people are the only ones to have been regular cast members since season one until the present time. The others were only recurring guests to start, and didn't become series regulars till their second season on the show. If any image should be used, it should be one that A) Shows the characters as they are and not some piece of promotional material with the actors B) Preserve historical accuracy over recentism if no other image can be attained. Plus, it's hard to say it isn't replaceable when you have something like this that you could request the owner release (if they haven't done that already) to the public domain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of that pic and the rest of that author's photos on flickr, I suspect that wasn't taken by them but instead a promotional shot. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been added to the article.--Music26/11 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent choice of images--being able to visualize House with his cane and seeing the contrast between his clothing style and that of the other, lab-coated doctors is very informative. Prose quality has also improved. Just caught something. In the first quotebox, Shore currently says, "But I quickly became to realize that we needed a character element." I assume that's a simple typo for "...quickly came to..." Do you have the source at hand to check? DocKino (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, good eye. He actually said "began to realize".--Music26/11 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query OK, I'm undertaking a thorough copyedit that will last a few days. I'll query substantive issues here as they come up. Here's the first.

  • In the lead section, it says Attanasio was inspired by "an article in The New York Times."
  • In the "Conception" subsection, it says he was inspired by "an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times." Fine.
  • Then, in the "Production team" subsection (which I renamed from the imprecise "Crew"), it says he was inspired by a "monthly...column in The New York Times Magazine."

Was it The New York Times or The New York Times Magazine? If the latter, it should always be referred to as such. Was it an article that inspired him; a monthly column that inspired him; or a particular installment of a monthly column that inspired him? Please check your sources; if they differ, figure out (if possible) who's most precise and credible; and nail this down. Spell it out here, and I can take care of the necessary copyedits in the article. DocKino (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I've further copyedited it. The ET Online article you cited did not, in fact, say a word about Sanders, so I've cut that reference. You also used that article to support the claim that Bergstrom has a small on-air role as a nurse; in no way does it support that claim. For the moment, I've cut the claim from the text. Do you have any source that actually supports it?DocKino (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You need to do some more research on this matter. The passage from the Challen book says that Attanasio "thought up the basic concept of a medical procedural series after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times." The Yale Medicine article on Lisa Sanders says of her Times Magazine column, "The column’s success inspired the TV series House". It strikes me that Challen's language could easily be (sloppy) shorthand for a description of Sanders's column. You need to track down more sourcing on this. Please look hard, because if no more sources can be found to clarify the matter, we have to rewrite the pertinent passages to note the lack of clarity.
A-ha Challen does mention the Diagnosis column. That's obviously it. The New York Times "article" is just sloppy shorthand. Proceeding to edit. DocKino (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I did not read that page.--Music26/11 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something else, and this is just as important. In checking the Challen citation you provided, I discovered that you'd committed inadvertent plagiarism. Challen, again, writes that Attanasio thought up
...a medical procedural series after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times.
And you write that he created
...a medical procedural drama after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times.
Even with the citation, this is impermissible. (We can hold off on changing it for the moment, since it will have to change anyway according to the results of your research described above).
Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then please go through the entire article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely. DocKino (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another task. You need to break up the book citations (which it looks like are all Challen) by page. A reader should be able to go to the footnote and immediately see the page number that's a source for a quotation or specific claim. We may know specific pages are visible on the edit screen, but we can't ask readers to figure that out. There are various ways to handle different page references to a single book. One way is to create a Sources section giving the complete bibliographical information and then use abbreviated references in the Notes/References section (like I do in Sex Pistols). As you may have only one applicable "source" here, it might be preferable to give the complete bibliographical information for each cite. There are other acceptable methods, I'm sure. The style is your call, but clarity on specific page numbers is a requirement. DocKino (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, someone put the page refs in one ref, I'll see what I can do; I don't have much time right now, but tomorrow I'll try to do a full read through to pick out the above mistakes you mention.--Music26/11 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose per resolution of the issue. Once you make it through DocKino's vetting process, I'll be happy to support.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query I know I've been responsible for changing some of the language relating to who "created" and/or "co-created" the show, and I want to make sure we nail this down. Here's some relevant data:

  • FOX officially credits Shore as "creator".
  • True.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Pilot (House) Featured Article (largely authored by Music 2611 and David Fuchs), says, in its lead, "House was created by David Shore", and, in its main text, refers to "Series creator David Shore".
    • Yeah, I noticed that recently. I was relatively new to FAs and GAs when I helped Fuchs out on that article. After I "finished" this article, I noticed some statements differed from the ones in the pilot article. The article needs to updated, because it would be strange to have different info on the pilot page.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression, from the few pages I've read of Challen's book--our leading published source--via Google Book Search is that, as a factual matter, the show is most accurately described as having been "co-created" by Shore and Attanasio. (I've read some of the other sources, as well, but obviously nowhere near as many as Music 2611.)
  • Yep that's true.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the relevant language that appeared in this article, which I found unacceptably confusing, before my first copyedit:
Lead section:
The program was co-created by David Shore and executive produced by Shore and film director Bryan Singer.... The show's premise was created by executive producer Paul Attanasio, who was inspired to create a medical procedural show after reading an article in the New York Times. Shore co-created the title character following a visit to a teaching hospital.
"Conception" section:
In 2004, creator David Shore and executive producers Katie Jacobs and Paul Attanasio pitched the show.... Attanasio was inspired to create a medical procedural drama after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times.
  • Here's how those passages now appear, largely at my instigation:
Lead section:
The program was co-created by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is officially credited by FOX as creator.... The show's premise originated with Attanasio, who was inspired to create a medical procedural show by a New York Times Magazine column, "Diagnosis". Shore was primarily responsible for conceiving of the title character.
"Conception" section:
In 2004, co-creators David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show.... Attanasio was inspired to create a medical procedural drama by the New York Times Magazine column "Diagnosis".
  • My query (or queries): Music 2611, do you feel the current language is both accurate and well-supported by our sources? If so, do you agree that the language of Pilot (House) should be changed to align with it? If you don't believe the current language is accurate and/or well-supported, how would you change it? DocKino (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. The copyedit proceeds apace. Just one substantive query that bears on phrasing/verb tense. Here are the passages in "Cast and characters' that concern me:

  • In House's first three seasons, six of the main actors received star billing.
  • While Penn, Jacobson, and Wilde played central characters, they did not receive star billing. They were credited under an "Also Starring" rubric, with their names appearing after the opening sequence.

I haven't really followed the show the last couple of seasons, but I'm guessing that the "original six" have all continued to receive star billing through the end of season 5. I imagine the article accurately describes the billing of the new central cast members in season 4 (or at least its second half). My query: Does it accurately describe their billing in season 5 as well (allowing for Penn's disappearance partway through)? If so, all that's needed is a verb tense change. If my first guess is correct as well, the relevant passages can be reworded thus:

  • During House's entire run to date, six of the main actors have received star billing.
  • While Jacobson and Wilde play central characters (as did Penn), they have not received star billing. They are credited under an "Also Starring" rubric, with their names appearing after the opening sequence.

Is that accurate, or did the billing of the new cast members change in season 5? DocKino (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/House_(TV_series)/archive1&oldid=1146311027"