User talk:Aoba47/Archive 35

TFA
Thank you today for Katie Joplin, "about a 1999 WB sitcom which starred Park Overall as a host of a phone-in radio program. It was optioned as a potential mid-season replacement for the 1998–1999 television season, but was delayed for a year. The WB had already decided to cancel the series prior to its premiere and seemingly did little to no promotion for it. This show is so obscure that it did not have a Wikipedia article until 2018, and I would be surprised if anyone has heard of it before this nomination."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. I greatly appreciate it. I had a lot of fun working on that article. Also, thank you for responding to the IP user on the Katie Joplin talk page. I did find the IP user's message to be rather frustrating and disheartening so your response and message here really helped me with that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't mention it. Don't let it get to you, the general public doesn't know how an article ends up on the front page of WP, so. (Now that I think about it, that's a major drawback of TFA.) Keep it up! RetiredDuke (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is very true. I have seen people who think a TFA is a random article that was randomly chosen to be featured on the main page. I agree it is a drawback, but I am not really sure how to correct that misconception. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I greatly appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You deserve more than 3 barnstars, but I stopped myself at 3...didn't want to spam your TP too bad . I do hope we cross paths again and that your break helps with the burnout. It's a very real thing and sadly one that claims a lot of the most dedicated editors at one point or another. Feel free to reach out any time. My email's open. Though I don't expect a response etc, I will let you know when Red goes for FAC as iirc you'd asked for that...but I don't expect you to do anything, just would/will be meant as an fyi. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 03:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That is very sweet. I just need a long break from Wikipedia to focus on other things. I still have my FAC to wrap up and a few miscellaneous reviews to finish, but after that, I am taking a break. I will likely return sometime in the future. Whenever I do, I will let you know. Have a good rest your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
Hello, Aoba47! I am very sorry to disturb you as I am sure you are very busy. I have seen your comments at various FACs and have been impressed with your work. I have opened up an peer review for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic before hopefully nominating it for FAC; I was wondering if you would be able to leave comments here. If you are unable to or don't want to, that's totally fine. Thanks either way! Pamzeis (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I will be unable to help with your peer review as I plan on taking a break from Wikipedia in the near future. Best of luck with it though! Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hi Aoba, I hope you're well. I see you're on a semi-wikibreak. If you can't get back to me right away, no worries. I'm just kind of thinking aloud and wondering if you might have any insight. In my current FAC there was a comment about whether there are no journal articles about the subject. I did a search of JSTOR and found one article that basically has three sentences about the song in the context of larger trends. If you look at User:Moisejp/sandbox11 under "Possible addition" there's a bunch of text I've copied from the PDF (lots of funny breaks and gaps in the text due to imperfect copying and pasting from PDF, but that's not important) and you see there's lots of background and then three sentences at the end specifically about "IGD". I could probably make a short paragraph about this at the end of Lyrics and themes, and I'm happy to do so if it's meaningful, but I wonder if it is meaningful. For Veronica Clare, you had about four or so journal articles and I don't know how much discussion there was in each specific to Veronica Clare (more than three sentences?). In any case, you were able to make two paragraphs combining commentary from various researchers. In my case, it'd only be one researcher, and not someone who is famous, so I'm skeptical it's meaningful. I suspect the three sentences in this journal article is not the level of depth the reviewer was hoping for. But I'm considering throwing together a short paragraph, putting it in the "IGD" article, and see if it sticks (see if the reviewer thinks it's worthwhile). I may yet do that. It'd also show a willingness to engage with the reviewer's comments. But anyway, I was curious about if you had any thoughts, partly because I know you have recent experience with Veronica Clare and you're already familiar with the "IGD" article. Thanks in advance. Moisejp (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. Feel free to leave me a message anytime. I will still be on Wikipedia, but my response time may be somewhat delayed. That is a very good and valid question. For the Veronica Clare article, I found several journal articles about the show; I remember that one was written specifically about the series, while others put their analysis of the show in larger discussions (i.e. on Lifetime's programming or female detectives for instance). Even with the later sources, their discussions on Veronica Clare were more than a few sentences. I was able to put these paragraphs together because there were multiple articles that analyzed the series.
 * This would be different for your article, where there is just a single journal article. If I was in this situation, I would put together a short paragraph and leave a message on the FAC to let the reviewer knew the rationale behind it. Let them know that you have done a search for scholarly articles and have only come up with this specific one. I understand your hesitancy to put it in there, as it is just a single article and you do not want to put undue weight on one person's article, and I would think it would be okay to raise your concern about that in the FAC space as well. But, I agree that it is probably a good idea to put together a short paragraph to show your willingness to engage with the reviewer and I believe that will foster the best reviewing environment for everyone.
 * I am sure you already aware of this so apologies in advance, but I would try to summarize the main points of the article as concisely as possible. From my understanding (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), this article is analyzing the lyrics so focusing on that and trying to put in the Lyrics and themes subsection so it flows with the other information. I know for the Veronica Clare article, there was a long (and wonderful) article about the series, obviously you cannot put everything in there (as I am sure you already know). So long story short, I agree with your approach. It is interesting to see what subjects got scholarly attention and what did not. Who would have thought an obscure Lifetime show from the early 90s would get more coverage than a Springsteen song? lol Best of luck with this. Apologies for the rambling response and feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba. Your reply was helpful. I'm working on a paragraph now (well, not at this exact instant, but have started gathering thoughts for it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moisejp (talk • contribs)
 * I am glad I can help. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Leah LaBelle

 * Way to go! Not sure when you'll next to extensive work on any articles, but this regardless is something to be proud of. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! :-) Moisejp (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words! I am very proud of my work on the article and I am extremely grateful for all the feedback I received as it helped to improve the article immensely. It was nice to work somewhat outside of my comfort zone. It will be a while before I do any extensive work on anything, but I had a lot of fun with this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Prison education at FAC
Hi Aoba47. I note you are on a semi-wikibreak, so don't feel pressured with this request, I just thought I may as well make it in case you come off the break soon as my nomination will probably be up for several weeks. Anyway I'm just letting you know that I've finally renominated Prison education for FAC: see here. I note you commented on the first nomination back in 2018, and were also kind enough to complete the peer review following it's failure at that FAC. If you have the time I'd certainly appreciate your comments at the current nomination, and do let me know when you need a review yourself next. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I am very glad that you are putting this through the FAC process again as the topic is very important and you have put a lot of great work into the article. I will look through the article in the near future, but please remind me if I have not posted anything by this time next week. I have one quick question. I remember that one of the FAC reviewers raised a question about education in military prisons, and I was wondering if that has been addressed or researched further? I do not have a strong opinion about this, or really enough of a background in it to say anything concrete, so I am not saying this is necessary. Best of luck with the FAC and I will make sure to look through it soon. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, and thank for being willing to take a look at it as time permits. You know I was almost going to put a disclaimer about that in the FAC nomination description about military prisons. One reviewer at the first FAC insisted on it, but then another one of my reviewers replied to them at FAC and said they though such as section would be undue weight, given the low percentage of people in military prison. Here in Australia for example, at any given time there are about 50,000 people in prison and about 10 in what would typically be called a military prison (though our government insists we don't have a military prison at all, but rather a rehabilitation centre with instructors as opposed to guards). That reviewer who opposed the military prison section gave me some feedback regarding the current nomination and stated they still thought such a section would be inappropriate; I agree with them. The only other person to provide feedback said they didn't see anything that needed improving, so I'm happy to leave it out unless a consensus forms at FAC that it must be included. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I trust your opinion, as well as the reviewer's opinion, as you are more knowledgeable than myself on this subject. I hope you are doing well, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the second ping. I have a quick question about this sentence: Prison education often aims to make the inmate more employable after release. I understand that this is one of the goals of prison education, but have there been any discussions on its actual implementation? I am curious if education would outweigh employers' hesitancy to hire people with criminal records. Was there any follow-up, whether it be statistical or discussions, about whether or not prisoners became more employable after receiving this type of education? Just to be clear, I am not saying this is necessary for the article, and I am not request any changes. This is more of a question that I kept returning to after the above sentence? Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, feel free to ping me with as many concerns about it as you like :). In the 'Reasons' sub-section I mention that "educational courses increased an inmate's chances of being employed post-release by 13%". Based on the literature I've read, those results are fairly typical. There are a couple brief mentions about employment in the 'Cost and financial benefits' section too. But I haven't focused much on increases in employment as the success rate of studies on prison education is always measured not by improvements in employment, self-esteem or decreases in drug-use etc, but solely by the decrease in recidivism. Not committing crimes is obviously influenced by things like employment, though success of academic studies is only measured by not going back to prison. Naturally having a criminal record is in itself a barrier to employment and prison education can only offset that so much, but I don't recall any sources specifically commenting on that. Let me know if you think I should add some information to the lead about the success of prison education in helping people find employment, or if you think this needs expanding on anywhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for pointing out the areas in the article where these points were discussed. It does make sense that the focus would be on recidivism. I would imagine that was the original focus for these programs, and this seems like an easier statistic to track and analyze rather than larger cultural and social attitudes that potential employers have about individuals with criminal records. I believe the lead should be fine as it currently stands. I have not read through the article in full again so I will let you know when I am done with that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies for yet another ping. I just wanted to let you know that I have started to look through the article. I will try to have my review up by tomorrow (and it is 12:05 AM on Sep. 22 when I'm writing this so I will be going to bed shortly). I do have two quick questions, which I will separate into two paragraphs below:


 * Have you found any coverage or discussions on fictional representations of prison education (whether it be in a positive, negative, or more "it exists" light)? I do not think it really has a place in the article, but I was randomly reminded that Prison Architect allows the player to implement a prison education system. I was just curious about your opinion of this. The Prison Architect one is the only example I can think of, but if I am being completely honest, I do not specifically go after stories set in or involving prisons.
 * I actually briefly considered buying Prison Architect some time ago haha; did you play it yourself? To answer your question though, I didn't come across any mention or prison education in fiction while scouring sources, though I should note at no point did I explicitly look for any. I never really considered writing about it, and to be honest at this stage I don't see how we could add anything meaningful, rather than just how it exists. It's a good point to raise though.
 * I agree with you. I am not certain how you could add anything meaningful to the article on this particular topic, but I still wanted to get your opinion anyway. I enjoy playing Prison Architect. If I am honest, I do not play it that much, but it is enjoyable and relaxing in an odd way lol. It is very much a construction and management simulation so in my opinion, your enjoyment will depend upon if you like that genre of games. It is very well put together and you could always wait for it to go on sale lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There was also a PBS documentary series (College Behind Bars about prison education in Bard Prison Initiative. I believe the Bard program is already in the article, but do you know if this show has any further information (or surrounding coverage) that may be useful for this article? I have not seen this series, but since it is rather high-profile, I'd be curious if it inspired further discussions on the state of prison education in the US as a whole. Apologies for asking these questions as I do not mean to be a pain. The article is in very strong shape from what I am seeing so far. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; it looks very interesting. The program is available to view on Kanopy, so I'll try my best to make the time to watch the four episodes over the coming days. I won't be surprised if I find a sentence or two I can add, but I presume most of the series is personal stories, so I don't think they'll be any game changers in there. I'll definitely investigate though! Damien Linnane (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking it out. I also doubt there is any game changers in there, but there might be some useful information to add a sentence or two, either as an update on the Bard Prison Initiative or to discuss more modern opinions of prison education in American (and maybe even both). I am glad that it is available for you as I know finding things can be quite challenging at times. It is not a huge priority so I would not worry too much about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiBreak
I see this WikiBreak didn't last long either. Lol. Always glad to see you working here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I hope you are doing well. Apologies for the back-and-forth. I will definitely stop with the short (to the point of non-existent) breaks. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

RED nominated for FA
Hi Aoba47, reaching out as I promised I would a while back. Red (Taylor Swift album) has been nominated for FA. Please feel free to comment, if you'd like, here on the review page. -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I will try my best to review your FAC. I am still somewhat taking a step back from reviewing, but I will try to look through the article. Best of luck with the FAC! Maybe it's because I primarily focus on more obscure subject matters, but hats off to you for working on something that has received so much coverage and has amassed a huge following. Your work there does make me want to go back to listen to this album in full as I have only heard some of the singles. Aoba47 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

FAC request
Hello again! I have now nominated Bowie's Low for FAC here. If you have the time I'd greatly appreciate some comments or concerns. Thanks! :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I will try my best to review your FAC in the near future. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Song ratings
Hi, Good day! You seem to be under the impression that "song ratings" is not a thing. But it is, on Wikipedia. Check Template:Song_ratings. Many old songs by Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Madonna, Britney Spears etc have song ratings in their articles. The template fell out of use because publications generally stopped giving star/score ratings to singles in the 2010s. However, in Adele's case, looks like publications are willing to review her single just like an album, just like they did decades ago, because there's so much anticipation surrounding it. Hence we're allowed to go beyond "standard procedure" if it makes the article better. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. In my experience, I have not seen this template used in song articles. You mention Taylor Swift as an example, but none of the featured articles for her songs ("Shake It Off", "Blank Space", "Style", and "New Romantics") use this template. I do not have strong feelings about this either way. I could see the benefit of the table as I feel it is more beneficial to represent the star ratings in that context so the prose can focus more on the review itself. I had only removed the table as it is not standard practice for song articles, but I do not have any real issues with its inclusion. I appreciate the follow-up, and thank you again for that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)