Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gossip Girl episodes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [1].

List of Gossip Girl episodes

[edit]

I've been working on this list for quite sometime and I must say it has greatly improved from its state some weeks ago. The citations are formatted nicely and the programming history has been expanded, and everything that needs to be cited is cited. –Howard the Duck 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This series only has 2 seasons yet. I dunno the exact parameters on when to divide to a Gossip Girl (season 2) subarticle but if it needs to be divided w/o sacrificing this FLC I'll do it. –Howard the Duck 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • remove bold from link per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • ""Gossip Girl,"" → ""Gossip Girl","
  • "from the CW" – link "CW", explain what it is, like "from the television network the CW"
  • "The CW" – "The" is capitalized here but not earlier?
  • "5 more episodes " → "five more episodes "

Gary King (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Howard the Duck 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I've changed all instances of "The CW" to "the CW" except when it's at the beginning of the sentence. I honestly don't know what is the proper convention but I went safe and used "the CW". –Howard the Duck 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
The links in the references are what I'm referring to. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ALL CAPS titles came from the CW press releases. I will make them appear in sentence case, and use the links from the CW.
  • Current ref 1 is lacking a last access date.
Yes, it is okay to use todays date if the link is still live. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes it does matter what website it comes from. The publisher of the information is the website, if they don't have a reputation for reliablity, how do we know that the press release is acurately reproduced? See below. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ratings in the blog are identical to the numbers spawned elsewhere. –Howard the Duck 03:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get this. What link titles? The titles of the episodes?
  • I didn't add ref 1 so is it OK to use today's date? The link is still live.
  • I dunno about the futoncritic website since it was there before I edited it but I'll find a new source.
  • See bullet point #2.
  • I'll find a better source for this.
    • This is a press release so I think it doesn't matter which website it comes from since all of the articles will look identical.
  • I'll do that.
  • The entertainmentpress blog is used in a lot of U.S. TV articles. Plus the ratings numbers it fleshes out correspond to other sources, and it is released by ABC so it is reliable.
–Howard the Duck 03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "This is an episode list..." boring. Kick off with something much more captivating.
  • Probably worth linking blog.
  • "first few " - not encyclopedic.
  • Two of the three paras in the lead are way short. Merge or expand.
  • "re-air" - is that actually English? Wild. I'd rephrase to "air again"?
  • Should "the CW" be "The CW"?
  • Move ref 7 to the end of the sentence, no real need for it to interrupt text.
  • Season heading shouldn't use hyphen for year range per WP:DASH.
  • Don't link individual years unless there's a really good reason to do so.
  • Also, date linking is up for debate as to whether it's actually any use. Consider unlinking your dates.
  • " 9:00/8:00c" - is that morning or evening? And what is "8:00c"?
  • "one of the most buzzed about new shows on the internet" - prove it and phrase it encyclopedically - "most buzzed about" is hardly Britannica-esque is it?
  • Title refs should be other side of the "
  • "whose relationship " - with whom? I know what you mean but it's not clear.
  • " the TV season " - television.
  • Do Amazon not publish their own work? i.e. shouldn't Amazon be a publisher rather than a work in the references?
  • The template doesn't seem to link to this list - it should.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:
I've done most of your suggestions except the questions above and:
  • for the years, since most FLs link the years,
  • the dates, since my preferences won't work if they're delinked,
  • "most buzzed..." is a quote. I can't change that.
  • and I dunno how to change "8:00/7:00c" although it makes perfect sense for me even though I don't live in a country split by multiple timezones. Maybe linking "c" to Central Time Zone? I dunno how to present this in a simply way. –Howard the Duck 04:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edit the way of stating the time, I think it's understandable for everybody now. –Howard the Duck 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • The lead has to say how many episodes have aired, alongside an "As of" date.
  • I've never heard the network referred to as simply "CW", the "The" seems to be part of its name, "The CW". I think your decision to change "The CW" to "the CW" is wrong, based on The CW Television Network, http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1152384,00.html, http://www.cbsrecords.com/news.shtml and http://www.tribune.com/pressroom/releases/2006/01242006.html, which all use a capital T.
  • Provide context for the reader, especially the non-Americans as to what "The CW is". Is it a cable network, a digital-only network, a terrestrial network, etc.
  • When referring to the series, "Gossip Girl" should always be in italics
  • "and is developed for television" is the developing ongoing? I'd use past tense here.
  • Don't begin sentences with "However". Use a semi-colon in place of the period and a lowercase h
  • "the CW announced five more episodes to be produced and aired in April and May 2008." sentence seems incomplete. Simple change would be to replace "and" with "which"
  • "Despite low ratings during the first part of the first season," reference, please, unless [3] covers it
  • "on early March 2008"?
  • Entire lead needs a copyedit. Also see the lead sections of other episode lists, such as List of Lost episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, list of Desperate Housewives episodes
  • See same pages for how to do the season overview table
  • "Repeats are also aired every Sunday on the CW at 8:00 p.m. Eastern (7:00 p.m. Central; on September 23 and September 30 only) before subsequently airing two hours earlier at 6:00 p.m. Eastern (5:00 p.m. Central)." present tense needs fixing, rest of sentence needs rewriting
  • "key demographics" highly specialised term. Can this be wikilinked or explained?
  • "is one of the most buzzed about new shows on the internet." present tense, WP:TONE on "buzzed", and reference
  • "Its digital video recorder ratings were high, increasing the shows profitability." prove both
  • "what's" contraction, and what exactly is shown on MTV? Links to series articles
  • "still warned parents of several scenes in the pilot." such as?
  • "After the last episode produced before the writers' strike was aired, the CW moved the series to Monday starting on January 28, with repeats of the first season[14] until the first post-strike episode was aired, after which it continued to be aired on Monday nights." clumsy. Lot of unnecessary wording
  • the references are not part of the title, and should not be in the quotes. Use the RTitle= field. Were the episode titles given on screen? If so, you don't need to reference them at all. Even if they weren't, you could instead use http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=288136&more=ucepisodelist, from TV Guide, and put the reference in the table header, next to "Episode title"
  • Production codes please
  • Instead of "Original the CW airdate", just do "Original airdate", and use the original airdate (so when they premiered on CTV first, use that. You can do a footnote to say that these episodes aired on a different network in a different country.
  • "Serena van der Woodsen's return ... is not warmly welcomed by her closest friend ... whose relationship with her has been competitive and difficult." doesn't seem like her closest friend then.. perhaps explain why
  • "Serena receives an icy reception to Blair" to or from?
  • "that she knows that she" -- that she that she, eugh
  • "running off" Tone
  • "As the students" what students?
  • "Dan gets confused best friend Vanessa Abrams returns"
  • "On Blair's masked ball" on or at?
  • "Chuck contemplates on investing" there's one word here that isn't necessary
  • "Blair is again devastated" when was she devastated the first time?
  • "van der Woodsens" Dutch name convention is to capitalise the V when not using the first name
  • "not knowing the romantic histories of Rufus, Alison and Lily, that causes them to be uncomfortable." who is uncomfortable? Rufus, Alison and Lily, or the Van der Woodsens?
  • "Blair goes around" in circles?
  • "Nate asks her to the cotillion ball making Chuck jealous." a comma is needed somewhere in here..
  • "after she learns that Serena is not going to the ball." there's a word that isn't needed somewhere in here..
  • "Convincing Serena and Lily that she is sick, she goes to the ball with Dan as her partner." who does?
  • "Blair gets disappointed" --> "a disappointed Blair"
  • "Serena, Blair, Nate, Chuck and their entourage" unwieldy. Perhaps pick one of them: "Serena and her entourage", "Nate and his entourage"
  • "who turns out was not pregnant after all." missing a word, but Tone is awful
  • Queen bee is the wrong link. You could be looking for Queen bee (subculture) which redirects to conformity
  • "Jenny does something illegal to fit in with the in-crowd." what do they do?
  • "Blair and Jenny take their popularity war to a whole new level." what level?
  • "Blair finally takes matters with Georgina into her own hands," how?
  • "The second season began to air on September 1, 2008" sounds like it was going to and then didn't. How about "The second season premiered on September 1, 2008"
  • "on its previous Monday time slot" --> "in the same Monday timeslot as the final part of season one" perhaps?
  • "The CW started the television season at the end of the northern hemisphere summer instead of the more conventional start in the fall along with other larger TV networks." needs rewording slightly
  • As I said before, each individual episode title doesn't need referencing, you can use http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=288136&more=ucepisodelist instead; however, that isn't the case for unaired episodes. They should be referenced since WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Same with summaries for unaired episodes. Best bet is to remove them completely though, and add them only after they've aired
  • I'm not convinced "Gossip Girl Revealed" needs to be listed separately. You could just say in the prose for season one that "the pilot reaired on January 28, 2008, and included additional footage including deleted scenes, outtakes, interviews and a special commentary by the cast."
  • Per WP:FOOT, don't do {{reflist|3}} because they are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors. 2 is fine.
  • The entire WP:TONE is unencyclopedic, and the episode summaries do not summarize. They tease. Please read WP:Plot summaries and WP:PLOTSUM.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be doing the minor things tomorrow or in the next day but there are some things I'd like to clarify:
    • The reason I used "the CW" instead of "The CW" is that the capitalization hawks might come and instead demand to use "the CW". I'd be using "The CW" as per your suggestion.
    • No MTV series were explicitly stated on the source.
    • I don't know where to get production codes. I tried searching before (to replace the TV ratings) but I can't find any.
    • I prefer to use The CW's airdate since it is the network producing the show. CTV just buys them and airs it. I'll have to be convinced to use the date when it was first aired anywhere, otherwise, it's like saying CTV is the original network.
    • I read on the official Gossip Girl blog the blogger uses the "van der Woodsen" convention when referring to the van der Woodsens. I can't find it but I do remember it being used there.
    • The plot summaries are all cited from The CW's plot summaries, so several plot elements aren't included. I found this hard to deal with on episode 12 since The CW's plot summary was crap and I had to insert "she was not pregnant after all" even though it was explicitly said on the source (although it was implied). If they'll be uncited, the plot summaries would be slightly reworked and some elements will be added. The reason I used The CW's plot summaries is to prevent anons from adding their own favorite parts of the story.
      • Basically the teasing tone of the summaries has to do with The CW's plot summaries. If they will be un-cited the tone will improve.
    • I've consistently hidden cells for unaired episodes via HTML markup but the anons persistently remove it.
    • "Gossip Girl Revealed" was a special episode, it was 90 minutes long (30 minutes longer than a ordinary episode). I dunno if it deserves it own section at the bottom since there were several scenes that were shown that were previously unaired, and the actors hosted the show.
    • Was it even in three columns? I didn't noticed, when I cleaned this up there wasn't any columns. It's currently 2 anyway. –Howard the Duck 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think on your statement about "despite low ratings...", you were referring to reference 4. It's covered there. Nevertheless I transferred reference 3 at the end of the sentence right before reference 4. –Howard the Duck 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • In addition to the things mentioned above
  • Fails Criteria 3 as it is not comprehensive. The webisodes were episodes of Gossip Girl so need to be included.
  • Using The CW dates and not original airdates, doesn't put it from a worldwide perspective. Most episodes of season 1 aired in Canada first.
  • The two stubby sentances at the end of the lead.
  • The teaser style of the episode summaries. Even if they are from CTV of The CW this is an encyclopaedia and we should inform.
  • Pilot was available on iTunes for free before the premiere, but this isn't even mentioned.
  • Season 2 DVD release. "TBA 2009" unless you have a ref for being released in 2009 that is WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  • It scares me how many refs on Entertainment Wordpress which isn't a WP:RS unless you have information that proves otherwise.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I had been planning myself to get this to FL, but I haven't seen the whole series yet. Anyways, good job for now, but I don't think it's FL status just yet. Here are some comments:
  • Your Entertainment Now wordpress is not very reliable, unfortunately. If other users have problems with it, try using the refs from List of Heroes episodes. Fortunately, most of the episodes aired in the same week, so all you have to do is copy and paste the refs for the appropriate date.
  • The title sections do not need a ref, I think. Has there been a change in the FL requirements?
  • As previously said, webisodes need mention. Again, have a look here: List of Heroes episodes
  • Um... there are more issues, but I think most have been said by the above users. If this fails, and I catch up to the series, I will probably help to get it to FL status.

Sorry, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:01, 4 October 2008 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Gossip_Girl_episodes/archive1&oldid=1089080121"