Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Random Years/archive1

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2022 [1].

The Random Years

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a short-lived UPN sitcom that follows three childhood friends as they attempt to navigate life after graduating college and each fall for an attractive, new neighbor. Aired as a mid-season replacement, this show aired for only three weeks in March 2002 before being canceled likely due to its abysmal ratings.

Unsurprisingly, The Random Years has fallen into complete obscurity, but for whatever reason, I do enjoy work on articles about more obscure media and I find UPN's attempts to establish a brand and maintain an audience to be fascinating. This is my ninth nomination for a UPN series and my first since 2019.

I have received a very helpful GAN review from @MaranoFan: and some very helpful comments in the peer review from @SatDis: and @Pseud 14:. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve the article. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:TheRandomYearsLogo.png: I'm concerned about the sourcing here, since it seems to be linkvio and incorrectly claiming a CC license for this image. I'd also suggest expanded the purpose of use field. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I have updated the purpose of use field with an explanation used in a recent television show FA, but please let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. As for the source link, would it be better to cite the series directly as the source? I am somewhat uncertain of that option as episodes of the series are not available online although the opening credits are accessible on YouTube (here). What would you suggest as the best course of action? Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I have removed the source link and linked the image through the series itself. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

I was able to provide comments in within the peer review for this article, and all of my suggestions were addressed. I believe the prose is of a FA quality and the random (pardon the pun!) references I checked all supported the details in the article. Support. Good luck! SatDis (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I was going to make a pun in the FAC, but I decided against it lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

"Although certain actors were praised in reviews, the cast as a whole also received negative feedback" - I don't think the "also" in the second clause works

Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Alex is a researcher and an assistant to a rock critic for Music Week magazine, but dreams of being a music critic and runs his own website" - this reads a bit oddly (the second bit specifically) as it reads kinda like the website part is also part of what he dreams, but the present tense suggests he is already doing it.....?

I have revised this part. According to the sources, Alex already runs his own music website and has dreams of being a music critic. If I had to guess, his dreams are becoming an established music critic through an established publication rather than through his own site. It is also important to remember this all took place in the early 2000s well before music critics were establishing themselves on YouTube and other platforms outside of established publications. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"While emphasizing the show's setting in one of New York's most diverse neighborhoods", Deggans" - quote mark is closed but never opened (or vice versa :-))

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for addressing everything. You have been a huge help. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further improve the article and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14

I PR'd this article and had my comments/points addressed during the process. Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

My comments at the GAN were exhaustive and the article only seems to have gotten better since then. Congrats on the nomination going well so far! :) N Ø 02:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and I greatly appreciate your kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid

Before I give it a through read, just asking. Is it common practice mentioning the running time of the episodes? For some reason, to me it sounds very essential information, at least the mean average for the entire season if not for each episode separately. Sitcoms generally run for a half hour (if not less) but who knows. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: That is a fair question. From my experience, television articles do not include running times for each individual episode. Sitcoms traditionally air in 30-minute time slots, which account for commercials, and the episode itself typically lasts 22 minutes. I used the 30-minute option in the infobox as this is the information that I can find supported in a citation and this is the kind of thing that would need to be cited. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shshshsh, just checking if there will be more to come from you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47@Gog the Mild: Just read the entire thing. I support the nomination. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Czar

Where does Levesque criticize the show's lack of diversity? I only see an aside that a different show, As If, gets "bonus points" for including a Black cast member. I'd also clarify in the lede what kind of diversity dearth is being criticized, i.e., lack of ethnic diversity. Altogether, in both sources, it does not present as a prominent criticism, so curious why it warrants mention in the lede? czar 22:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thank you for the comment. Levesque starts his review by saying the following: "the search to find the next witty exploration of chumhood in an urban setting where people of color are hard to find". I had interpreted this statement as applicable to The Random Years and As If, but upon further review, it is far too vague. I agree the criticism of racial and ethnic diversity is not prominent enough to warrant a separate paragraph or a mention in the lead. The only critic to explicitly focus on this is Deggans. This paragraph was likely a holdover from my draft when I thought there would be more to this type of criticism after reading Deggans. I ended up removing it from the article entirely. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense—thanks! czar 00:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I appreciate your comment and apologies for misreading that source. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, just checking if there will be more to come from you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just passing through. Happy to help if spot checks are needed. czar 04:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

What do the alphabets at the ending of some dates mean? Examples: January 24, 2002a, March 7, 2002b and March 5, 2002a FrB.TG (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: They are used to distinguish citations from authors with the same last name that were published in the same year. An example of this is Johnson (with Allan Johnson being referenced by 2002a and Steve Johnson by 2002b). This is done to insure that the citations link down to the correct source and it is the method encouraged by the template. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that was my only concern. Pass source review. FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the source review and the question. I can understand how the Harvard citation style can be confusing (particularly in cases like this one) and why some editors dislike it but I personally enjoy it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for pinging you. I was just curious of the status of the nomination. Is it being kept active until the standard three-week time period? I was wondering because activity on this nomination has dropped off for some time and the nomination is continually moving down the list. I just wanted to make sure there was not something I was missing or could do to help with the nomination. Thank you in advance. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look through this tonight (or more likely, tomorrow afternoon). I've been very busy lately and haven't been able to keep as close an eye on the FAC list as I'd like. Hog Farm _Talk 01:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Apologies for being a pest. Take as much time as you need and best of luck with everything that is keeping you busy. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2022 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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