Template:Did you know nominations/Chicagoland (TV series)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Chicagoland (TV series)

 * ... that Chicagoland was produced to help CNN be less dependent upon the 24-hour news cycle?

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Reviewing: Template:Did you know nominations/Women's Premiership (3rd of 10 QPQs)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough and nominally long enough. QPQ is done. The hook is interesting (it enticed me to review this nom), but unfortunately it is not actually supported by sourcing. The source is a reviewer's informed opinion regarding the benefits to CNN from doing a series like this one; it is not a factual statement regarding CNN's decision process. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, The Hollywood Reporter is and has always been a WP:RS, especially for television shows. We often include critics opinions in hooks. What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I have concerns about article content that appears to be nothing more than uncritical repetition of breezy promotional content. I refer to phrasing like "the award-winning filmmakers", and particularly to the long quotation at the end of the "Background" section (the quotation preceded by the words "According to a May 2013 article in Entertainment Weekly the CNN press release described the show as follows") and the entire "Synopsis" section (which doesn't identify a source, doesn't say anything of substance -- it's actually hard to figure out what it means, and reads like it might have been copied from a press blurb). (Anyway, why does this series need a "synopsis"? It's not a work of fiction that has a plot.) If deductions are made for direct quotations and promotional blather, I believe that the prose content of this article would not meet the 1500-character requirement. Please add some more substance, make sure everything is sourced, and lose the promotional verbiage. As for the hook, either find a solid basis for the hook fact or find a new hook. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the synopsis came from this edit by . The series is not really a news show, so presenting a plot synopsis is probably not unlike some reality television shows. The long quote was included to demonstrate the intent of the show before it was actually filmed and produced. It serves a purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the "synopsis" was unsourced and promotional in its tone. I removed it. That long (three sentences long, about 350-400 characters) quotation from a CNN public relations blurb also has no place in an encyclopedia article. Short bits from the quotation might be appropriate to quote, but articles should be original content, not strung-together collections of long quotations. The "synopsis" did mention that the series was looking at several current issues in Chicago and at Rahm Emanuel's role and performance in leading the city and addressing its issues. There are now plenty of published reviews that discuss the subject matter of the series, critique its depiction of Emanuel, compare the focus on Emanuel to Brick City's focus on Cory Booker, etc. Those reviews could be cited as sources of information about the show. (Put another way: Some reviews that are now used only as sources for the long direct quotations that make up about one-third of the "Reception" section could also be good sources for factual descriptive information about the series.)
 * BTW, I've beefed up the statements about the CNN motivation for this series. I think the hook might be supported if you can wedge "24-hour" into the article. The Variety piece may also help to support the hook (although, like the Hollywood Reporter piece, it doesn't specifically say that this is why CNN is doing what it is doing). --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't the sources for news cycle support 24-hour news cycle. I just changed the link to avoid the redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll accept the hook, now that the article uses the words that appear in the hook. That leaves a need to deal with my other concern (briefly stated): "Please add some more substance, make sure everything is sourced, and lose the promotional verbiage." My concern is related to policy regarding promotional content and an excessive use of quotations that is tantamount to plagiarism. Also see rule 2.d and supplementary rule D7. It shouldn't be hard to add some content in your own words (but based on sources) about the subject matter of the series. It also shouldn't be hard to trim the promotional wording borrowed from sources and the length of direct quotations (not to mention the padding that comes from verbiage like "According to a May 2013 article in Entertainment Weekly the CNN press release described the show as follows"). I've not yet looked for close paraphrasing because I'm hoping that it will be edited out before that review is done. --Orlady (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been almost two weeks, and no action has been taken on the above. The Reception section is 1190 prose characters of the article's 2574, but 879 of these are in long direct quotes, which is far too much, as Orlady noted. Action is needed soon on the issues she raised to keep this nomination open. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I took out a bit of the promotional verbiage (per WP:PEA), trimmed the one example of padding noted above, and blockquoted per WP:QUOTE. The article is now 1485 prose characters, too short to qualify. This might be a good time to add the additional substance Orlady requested, and take another look at the other issues she raised; the Reception section was only one issue of the many she touched on. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Where does this stand?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could run this with the finale on April 24 (April 25 UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Orlady asked for additional substance; the only addition (made after my most recent comment, but not noted here) was to basically copy some production info already in the body to the lede of the article, so it's now repeated. How about some new facts or commentary? And have you addressed all the other issues she raised? That's also needed before she can finish the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the DYK requirement was 1500 characters of substance, not enough substance to make everybody happy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, I point you to WP:DYK 2d: In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers., and also WP:DYKSG, which goes into this issue in greater depth. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will wait for critical review of the finale on the 24th and then expand the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll let Orlady comment on whether she feels you have addressed all the issues she has raised. In the meantime, there's one bare URL that will have to be fixed per DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bare URL merged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg In its current form, this article contains a 61-word direct quote from CNN that starts "The riveting, real-life drama..." and contains in the same advertorial vein. (It's been almost two months since I wrote -- referring to that same quotation -- "That long (three sentences long, about 350-400 characters) quotation from a CNN public relations blurb also has no place in an encyclopedia article.") Seeing that the article creator (who is neither incompetent nor a newbie) thinks that my only concern with the article was a bare url, I guess it's time to fail this nom. Maybe you can talk someone else into accepting this, but my forebearance has passed its expiry date. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I'll add some more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now revamped. This is more than sufficient quality for DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This impartial observer would agree. —Akrabbimtalk 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg While it's always nice to see new DYK participants, an agreement here might carry some weight if a full review—which is what is needed in this case—had been conducted, and the full DYK criteria clearly applied to it, including hook sourcing, article neutrality, and a check for close paraphrasing. Since it clearly was not, and there have been significant issues with this nomination, let's have an experienced reviewer take on the task. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I suppose I should've been more explicit then. I did review per WP:DYKR, after noting that issues noted above (lengthy quotes, promotional tone, lack of content) had been addressed. —Akrabbimtalk 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)