Talk:The Purple Piano Project

Songs
The songs they're singing in this episode are We Got The Beat, It's Not Unusual, Popular, Party All The Time and Run The World (Girls) can someone get on that and post it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.173.236 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source where these songs are listed as being in the episode, so that they can be properly footnoted if we add them? Once we have that, they can be added. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They are singing We Got The beat in the promo, that's pretty verifiable I'd say, not the others though, I guarentee that thye'll sing It's Not Unusual but thats not enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.173.236 (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were part of a scene being previewed that we know is from the first episode, then I think it would work. If it's just the song that's being sung as Sue throws the dodgeballs, then there's no guarantee that it will be in the first episode rather than the second or third, even if it seems likely. Unless there's something concrete showing the song in that particular episode, we have to wait. Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources; I had to learn the hard way that even perfectly logical deductions based on other information isn't good enough. I keep hoping that Glee or Fox let something definitive get out soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article development co-ordination
Subtopic to co-ordinate development efforts. (Specifically addressing BlueMoonset, but of course anyone else reading should please chip in if so inclined!) Further to here, do you have any specifics in mind as to how you'd like to split the workload? Frickative 00:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, since I asked for this topic, but I'm sitting here in front of my computer coming up completely dry. I've read four or five reviews, and my brain is on strike. I thought to divert to "Rumours", and it doesn't want to do that either. Heck, it doesn't even want to write a Ratings section. So I'm giving myself the night off, and I'll look again tomorrow sometime. If you have any ideas, please let me know. One possibility is that we alternate shows, one of us doing both the critical and musical sections for the first, and the other for the second, and so on, so we don't both have to read all the reviews for an episode. Sections like Ratings, Chart history, and Production could be handled piecemeal.


 * BTW, I looked for a Vanity Fair article, but there isn't one yet. Maybe Berk is running late. None of the three New York dailies had reviews on the show that I could find, which isn't too surprising, since the Times reviews but rarely, the Daily News reviewer moved to Faster Times, and Wieselman of the Post stopped reviewing in favor of entertainment "news". My Google search did find a reviewer at the Dallas Morning News, so I've added that to the Sources section above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Parcelling it out that way would be fine with me - my only concern is that you've done all the heavy lifting on this one thus far, and I can't be certain whether I have enough time to commit to both main reception sections until this month is out. I could always take them for "I Am Unicorn", but then TPPP wouldn't be much of a joint effort all told, and I don't want to saddle you with all the work. Then again, it might just be the length of the sources list giving me undue cause for concern? I've read a lot of them already, and apart from the usual suspects (VanDerWerff in particular) they shouldn't be too time consuming to get through... Having said all this, it just occurred to me that you might have a preference to take this one anyway, in which case the above is all redundant. If you do, great, I'll do as much work on the remaining sections as possible and look forward to "I Am Unicorn". If not, eh, I'm game to give this a go - I used to be able to turn out reception sections within a day, so it'd probably do me some good to try working under pressure. Frickative  21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're game to give both reception sections for TPPP a go, I can do both of them for Unicorn. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed at the moment, and find myself looking for small stuff updates to do (as witness today) instead of approaching the big monster. I'll be happy to take care of the Ratings section, and plan to add something about the show's capture of Twitter's trending topics: Hollywood Reporter says it was four of the top ten, though Kevin McHale tweeted that it was five of them. I have to go out for a little while now, but should be able to respond again in a couple of hours or so. I did have an idea for a DYK for TPPP (sneaking Lindsay Pearce onto the soundstage, since The Glee Project hadn't yet concluded), but we won't qualify: I don't see how we get the required fivefold increase in size in five days' time. I'm preparing early for a DYK involving Damian McGinty and episode four, though I think it's a shame that the DYK rules militate against people seeing post-airing versions of articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing - I'll get started and hope for the best! DYK is a pain, especially because (although we've never been dinged for it in the past...) one of the supplementary rules is an expectation of reasonable completeness, which discourages pre-broadcast nominations too. That would be a great hook though, and it could technically be feasible, if I can get enough work done before the 24th. On the 19th, the article was only 512 characters, and we're up to 1,261 now, so if I could turn out crit resp & music/performances at 650 words a piece within 2 days, we'd be golden. That's a pretty big if, though, so I'm going to crack on and get some work done IRL to hopefully free up a bit more time tomorrow. Frickative  22:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm always fascinated to see the way you develop your article sections. I'm also flabbergasted at how sloppy some of these reviews are. For example, the [sic] you noted, but also the Goldberg review of Quinn, which attributes her "deal with it" comment as going to Rachel, when in fact it was said to Santana and Brittany. (To my mind, the two Quinn scenes were very different, perhaps because it was Santana, who can be smart about people but heedless about feelings, and Rachel, who can be very empathetic, though she also has her blind spots.) Incidentally, where do you think the information that the episode had four of ten Twitter trending topics the night of broadcast? (Kevin McHale tweeted that there were five of ten, which I imagine was true for at least a little while, but Hollywood Reporter said four (and it says what they are). The info doesn't quite fit in Production, does it? When "asian vampires" trended for "Theatricality", it was mentioned at the beginning of the Critical response section, but I don't really think it goes there, at least, not in the article style we've become accustomed to. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh geeze, I hadn't noticed the mistake in Goldberg on Quinn - good job you pointed it out, because I had half a mind to include that half sentence verbatim when I start drafting. Also, Lindy West's review, while humorous, is so dripping with sarcasm from every sentence it was hard to extract anything usable. Hmm, that's a tough one on Twitter trending, because I agree neither Production or Crit resp is an ideal fit. I just found this titbit which is quite interesting and probably best suited to Production - perhaps if the trending info followed on from that, it wouldn't be such an awkward fit? Obviously that wouldn't work in future weeks though... the only alternative I can think of is a stub-sizw subsection of reception (Online impact?) or combining it with Ratings (Ratings and online impact?). Frickative  00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can get something workable for Production, though I'm not sure where it would best go. Probably after the short Comic-Con paragraph. Time for my own "oh geeze": the synopsis is 685 words. Since DYK doesn't care about that, I'll leave it alone, but we'll need to get rid of at least 150 words (and preferably over 200) before we try for GAN. Fortunately, we have plenty of time before we need to try that. A few attempts at DYK text have cut from 239 to 195 characters including spaces and the initial, required periods (not to mention 49 characters of formatting). I'm wondering whether formatting counts... and I'm afraid it might. What do you think about: "... that Lindsay Pearce had to be snuck onto the Glee set to shoot her scenes as The Glee Project finale awarding her the role hadn't yet aired?" I'm just below the max of 200, and I feel I may have cut something important getting down this low, such as that it was a two-episode prize, and I would have preferred "because" or "since" to "as". But I suspect we're awfully close to the limit, and more cuts are probably better. Thoughts? (Would you believe my first draft for Damian was 135 characters? Doesn't seem fair, somehow. It's now up to 164, and I think it works. Now to wait for the episode four title reliable source.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, I noticed that the plot was running a bit long earlier, so I went through the whole thing, recounted... and I'd taken out 30 words. It was such a pathetic attempt I didn't even bother saving. I'm about 80% sure that formatting doesn't count for hooks (looking at the DYKs listed at WP:GLEE, a lot of them would have been over the limit if it did), so you should have a decent cushion to tweak the wording until you're satisfied :D ("... that Lindsay Pearce had to film her scenes in Glee season three premiere in secret, because The Glee Project finale awarding her the role had yet to air?" "Glee season three premiere"? "third season premiere"? Ack, disregard - was trying to emphasize the hook target, but the "snuck onto the set" wording is much more fun and hook-y). Frickative  02:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh. Of the longer looking ones, the Gilsig is 171 characters and the Björk is 187, and that's only the text that shows, not the underlying links. That's promising; they shouldn't have been accepted if 200 including the linkage. I'm glad you like the hook. I might try expanding, though changing "as" to "since" is it so far, and linking for the series article. Also, according to the DYK pages, since we submit the entry under the expansion date, we can put it up for September 21, since that's when the first expanding post was made (UTC). They'll go back to the 19th for the comparison, but we aren't "charged" for the extra days. So we have a bit more time than we thought, though I'd certainly like to submit it no later than Saturday so there's time for editing. I need to spend some time on a non-Glee project, but if I finish what I need to do before bedtime, I'll be back. (Robert's been working on "New York" tonight, and found very little to correct so far. I have hopes...) BTW: Damian's hook is "shoved into a locker 25 times". :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha! Poor guy, that's real dedication to the cause. I'll keep my fingers crossed for both hooks to be selected in last place on the main page (I don't know how much DYK-reading you do, but in case it's much, that's where the quirkiest hooks tend to go so things end on an amusing/upbeat note). That's good to know about the DYK date, but I will endeavour to have a decent draft in the mainspace by Saturday. It might be a different story when I get begin the nitty gritty of turning it into readable prose, but I've got a good idea of how everything should slot together so far. I need to call it a night soon, but I'll try and finish off the bare bones so I can dive straight in tomorrow. Frickative  03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've been going great guns! By the way, I managed to pull the Skanks info from the co-starring credits at the end: Courtney Ann Galiano plays The Mack, Raven Goodwin plays Sheila, and Jolene Purdy plays Ronnie. I noted on the Season 3 page that Goodwin was playing Sheila, since a character by the name of Sheila was (originally) supposed to be a Joan Jett–like character this season, mentioned in an Ausiello column on "mean girls" that also mentioned Sugar. Whether this means that Sheila is sticking around for a while even after Quinn comes back to New Directions, or they decided to repurpose the name for this character instead of their original intention, I have no idea, but she sure doesn't look much like Joan Jett. (In fact, Goodwin is often mistaken for Amber Riley, to judge by what Google came up with.) And she prefers the Bangles to the Go-Gos. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted the Reception section header, plus both Ratings and Social media sections, a little while ago. I see you've finished the first draft of the Music section, and you're going to want to cut it. (Lots of nice stuff there; I don't envy you the task.) Don't cut too deeply, though. (At least not until the DYK nom is made and completed one way or the other.) :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh, thanks for the info on the Skanks! It caught my interest when Hankinson noted that one of them was a former So You Think You Can Dance contestant, as many of Vocal Adrenaline and the Jane Addams choir were likewise, but after sleeping on it I realised there's no way to make that link without invoking OR, and beyond which... it's not at all important or noteworthy. Interesting that Sheila may have cropped up as such a minor character though.


 * Nice work on reception! I like the "Social media" heading, and I love how you can take a silly Tweet like "5 TT's! Woo woo!" and spin a totally encyclopaedic sentence around it. Heh, I really didn't foresee Music weighing in at nearly 1,000 words. I'm trying to paraphrase as many of the quotes as possible and have brought it down to about 850, but I'd be happier with 650 - I can't see critical response coming in under that, so we shouldn't need to worry about DYK. (Actually, with the two new sections, both sections could sit around ~500 and we'd be fine, though I don't see that happening!) Frickative  18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad the Skanks are useful. They were three of six co-stars that week; the other three included two of the NYADA hopefuls—Pendleton (rumored to have been Lindsay's character name) and Canada—and the hockey player who calls Finn a Glee-ot. I wonder if they're going to resurrect the football/hockey rivalry again this year. (Might be fun to see Shane mash a few hockey players.)


 * Thanks for the reception kudos! When I finally figured out what "5 TT's" meant, I knew it was perfect. (At the time, though, it sailed right over my head. Sigh.) Y'know, I'd be happy with being nicely over five times the material, like a full six or even seven. (I like having a cushion, in case their wordcount programs have some odd quirks.) We'll definitely want a nicely enhanced intro to go along with the new sections, which should give us another 150 words or so. I think I could be satisfied with six times. Don't want to be too greedy. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I read an interview with the hockey dude last week in which he said he'd been called back for another episode, so we could indeed be getting a revival of the sporting rivalry plot (and ha, nice idea for Shane!). &&&, I make that a 6.6 times expansion. Phew. No doubt needs at least several more re-drafts, but I was so pleased at getting draft #1 done within 24 hours that into the mainspace it went. I toyed with the idea of parcelling paragraph three out to the Rachel/Kurt/Will/Emma/Sue articles, but I don't want to potentially bloat those pages for the sake of streamlining this one. Frickative  23:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great work! I'm hugely impressed; this was not an easy episode to track, and season premieres seem to attract far more reviewers than usual. 6.6 times is good; we'll probably be closer to 6.8 by the time the intro that's slowly taking shape is done. I think I'll finish it, post it, and then go to the DYK page and post the suggested entry for the article. I'll also drop a note on Robert's page asking him to look it over, since he has so much experience with DYKs, and let me know of any suggestions he might have. As for hockey dude, his name is Rock Anthony, which I looked at twice to be sure I'd written it down correctly. :-) I'm not surprised we'll be seeing him again. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ETA: It's added at Template:Did you know nominations/The Purple Piano Project, and I slotted it in under the DYK page's September 21 section—it's lucky number thirteen for that day. :-) I hope you don't mind, but I included your name as an author in addition to mine. Given that you've written at least half of the article, I thought that was only right. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ETAagain: Robert ended up taking it himself, and not only told me what to fix, he suggested an alternate (better) bold phrase and slightly modified hook, and set the article from "Start" to "B". I did have to add refs to the lead and make sure every paragraph (except "Plot" paragraphs, because they don't involve the hook) ended with a ref. So please don't change those. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! I look forward to seeing it on the main page :) I like the hook, and the double image Robert's added to "Production" as well. Pity there isn't a free one of Lindsay to use down the bottom, seeing as her song went down so well. Frickative  13:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At a guess, it'll appear on the 26th, either with the morning or evening push. They've already prepared the next three groups of six (and one for the following group), and it's one of the next six available chronologically. Of course, it's always possible that more of the earlier pending ones will pass before the next groups are prepared, and it doesn't get swept up quite as quickly, but I doubt it would be any later than the 27th. I actually messed with Robert's double image once it was up, changing the photos to newer ones from our free-image stash since I think they look better. I thought about Lindsay for below, too, when Robert put up the dual image, but the so-called free one on the commons has been challenged, and I'm sure will be deleted in due course. (It's clearly not an amateur shot; I'd guess a "candid"/"informal" publicity or portfolio shot.)


 * BTW, if you see something that doesn't seem quite right in the article intro, please adjust as needed. I wasn't perfectly happy with what I did with the response sentences there. The only information we're lacking in the article is the chart history, so that's all that might need to be added up top. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Later: Thanks for adding the Australian and European ratings info. I've supplemented with comparisons to the "New York" numbers. In doing so, I noticed the the UK numbers don't quite compute. While the article cited says the 639,000 for TPPP on Sky1 is down nearly 50% from the E4 NY numbers, the "New York" article gives those numbers as 2.61 million—2.03 million for E4, and 573,000 for E4+1. That's down by over 75%; they lost 1.97 million viewers. When we get the British BARB numbers and the Canadian BBM numbers I imagine we'll revisit this anyway, since the BARB numbers ought to have a more complete set of data, and the BBM numbers will probably have more accurate numbers to two decimal places, but for now I was thinking of either pulling the comparison from the UK numbers, or to move the footnote to before the comparison, and insert our own numbers with a new footnote to the BARB NY numbers. What do you think? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It took a bit of digging through the site, but it seems Digital Spy have based the 50% on "New York"'s overnight rating. That puzzled me at first, but I can see the logic in comparing overnights to overnights, rather than overnights to the final rating. Once the BARB numbers are up, we can pull all the DS stuff anyway (and presumably numbers will be adjusted up, so theoretically the gap will end up closer to 50% than 75%). Frickative  21:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great addition. Thanks! Odd that the numbers would be half as large in the overnights as they are in the finals, but who said these processes had to be logical? In other news, I'm happy to report that the DYK has been officially promoted, and is in Prepare Area 1, which is destined to moved into Queue 2 in the next day or so and then be published at approximately 11:05 am BST/6:05am EDT on Monday the 26th. It'll be the third of the six entries. Something to look forward to. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: would the following be considered OR? In the production section, we have the Falchuk quote from PaleyFest: "Come the first episode back, you see who the seniors and juniors are." As it turns out, this is not quite true. Jacob's interview establishes that Tina and Artie are juniors, and Mike, Finn, Rachel, Kurt, and Santana are seniors. The scene with Santana, Brittany and Quinn makes it clear that all three of them are seniors, so Santana gets double confirmation. That's nine. We're left with Mercedes, Puck, and Blaine; there is no specific information about any of them. Mercedes has her scene with Shane as part of Jacob's interview, but he doesn't mention senior, and the only thing said about school is Shane's "when you graduate and win your first Grammy" line, which isn't definitive at all. The brief scene of Puck with Lauren gives us no information about junior vs. senior, so he's not definitively set. And while Kurt's talking about his senior year with Blaine in the coffee shop, there's nothing at all said about Blaine's grade level. I was wondering whether we can note that, as broadcast, the episode only established seven seniors and two juniors, and left three unidentified (we'd probably have to mention the three). If it is OR, is there anything we can say about it, or should we perhaps consider removing it, since it turned out not to be completely accurate?


 * BTW, I did some cutting of the Plot section today; we're down below 550. I know it's a little high, but there's a lot of catching up on plot needed due to over-the-summer events. (Actually, it's about where "Rumours" is right now; I have trouble making it down to 500, much less 450. We're at a bit of a general disadvantage compared to other shows, since we need to chronicle song titles and the like.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot order
One quick point: didn't Blaine sing "It's Not Unusual" before he was introduced as the newest member of New Directions? Samer (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually, in these Plot sections, we group storylines rather than do a synopsis in chronological order. So Will gaining Blaine as a recruit is mentioned at the end of his paragraph, while Blaine's doing his bit, technically before that, but at the beginning of the final paragraph that brings together the recruitment and sabotage plotlines, with Kurt and Rachel's storyline sandwiched between, even though that thread starts very early in the episode and concludes in the final scene right after Blaine is introduced by Will. I've done a slight rewrite of the final paragraph, which may also help a bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)