User talk:Aoba47/Archive 38

The Signpost: 27 February 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Private Practice (season 1)
Hey, I know I supported its FLC promotion at the time, but I've been wondering if it should've instead been at FAC. The only "listy" thing about this article is the list of episodes. A season of its parent show, Grey's Anatomy (season 17), is a featured article, for example. But then again, there are 75 other similar FLs, and only a few are featured articles. I don't know why some are FLs while others FAs. The only difference I see that the FAs have longer prose but I don't know if that in itself is a reason to classify the shorter ones as FLs. What do you think? FrB.TG (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. This was raised during the FLC, and upon further reflection, I believe that it is more so an article rather than a list given the amount of sections with prose. It is strange how some seasons are considered lists and some are considered articles. I wish there was more consistency or at least clarity on the difference between the two.


 * I would not be opposed to this being taken to the WP:FLRC with the argument being it is more of an article than a list. I honestly should look back through this article again anyway as it has been a while since I worked on it. I believe that I have grown a lot as an editor and writer since then, and I am now more aware of different databases and such that I could look for further information. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do ever want take this to FAC I'd definitely love to help you wherever I can on the article, even co-nominating it with you when the time arises! The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate that, and I will definitely keep you updated about it. It is not in my immediate plans, but it would be fun to work on it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Aoba. The reason I was curious about this is because I've been looking for non-BLPs, less high-profile articles to improve. BLPs are so stressful sometimes and highly scrutinized. So I have been thinking about taking some break from them and improving some television-related articles (series, episodes or seasons). I have worked on film articles before for GA but not much on television. Do you have some tips for me on where one can find information, among other things? FrB.TG (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Guess I should point out I'm also a page stalker? Hope you don't mind Aoba. Anyway, from what I've seen there really isn't a consensus about how to properly write an article relating to a season from a specific TV series. I mean, I've seen some that are featured lists, other that are good articles, and some that are featured articles. From my understanding, one of the biggest differences between whether a season page is viewed as a list or articles (and whether it can become a featured list or featured article) has to do with how much information is present. So you're definitely right about the prose playing an important role.
 * A good way of doing this is to look at "Production" sections. If you look at pages like 30 Rock (season 1), Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1), Bleach (season 1), or Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), you'll notice that all of them either have extremely small "Production" sections or none at all. This contrasts with the 17th season of Grey's Anatomy, or pages like Parks and Recreation (season 1) and True Detective (season 1). You'll also notice that the featured articles have pretty big "Reception" sections as well, while some featured lists have much smaller ones of none at all; like Bleach.
 * Regarding the 1st season of Private Practice (season 1), I do believe it could become a featured article relatively easily; but it would probably need for its "Production" section to be expanded. Whether its with interviews regarding the season's conception and writing, or actors discussing being cast and their characters. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your responses. I agree with 's assessment of the difference between lists and articles for television series. I would definitely do more work and look for further sources before nominating Private Practice (season 1) for a FAC as I would not be surprised if I had missed some sources as I was not as familiar with the databases back when I first wrote it. I will likely approach one of the WP:FLC delegates to figure out how to best handle Private Practice (season 1) not really being a list.
 * : I can understand your reasoning for taking a break from BLPs. You have done a great job with those articles. I'd recommend looking at high-quality articles and/or lists about television shows, episodes, and/or seasons and experimenting in your sandbox. A lot of it depends on what you decide to work on, and I'd be more than happy to provide further suggestions when/if you pick a topic to further explore. My strategy for finding sources is basic tbh. I start with a Google search, which includes going through Google Books and Google Scholar, and depending on when the show aired, I go through Newspapers.com and the Wikipedia Library as well. But, feel free to message me if you have any specific questions about this! Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I agree it's good to look at the existing FA/GAs about such works and use them as examples of what is expected. I myself don't usually have a particular process when expanding articles. I just start reading whatever I can find about the subject and then add it in Wikipedia. So I guess it's no different here. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is honestly how I do it too. I wish that I had more specific advice for television articles, but it is pretty much the same in my experience. Since you have already written FAs in the past, you already have a solid understanding of what a reliable or "high-quality" source so that will help when you are looking for sources more specifically on television. I wish you the best of luck with it, and I really should go back and do another season article. I kept meaning to do Private Practice (season 2) so this could be my opportunity to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Shiva Baby/archive1
So, I'm just going to be completely hypocritical and ask, as a favor, that you stop saying "support" twice when you support at FLC, as in the linked FLC. (I'm being hypocritical because sometimes I've criticized people for asking Wikipedians to change their completely reasonable behaviors just because people didn't want to fix a bot or script that was misinterpreting those behaviors). A bunch of people use Nominations viewer to help us figure out what needs doing and when to do it (and I see that the example given on that page mentions ... Aoba!), but that script is brain-dead when it comes to interpreting multiple supports from the same reviewer. Thanks. Changing the section heading to "Comments from Aoba47" or just "Aoba47" would fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I will change the heading later tonight and for the future, I will use just "Aoba47" instead for simplicity. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Mindful (song)

 * Congrats! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I really appreciate the messages! Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Veronica Clare
Not sure how legit it is, but the first TV movie part of Veronica Clare was put up for sale here: https://www.truetvmovies.net/store/p10645/Veronica_Clare_%28TV_Series_1991%29_tv_pilot_only.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanagiotisZois (talk • contribs) 12:15, April 19, 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. I have a strong suspicion that it is a bootleg recording. I have seen similar sketchy releases for obscure shows like this one. It is not trustworthy enough to be included on the Wikipedia page, and I do not trust the website enough to buy it (as much as I would love to actually watch this show). Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Academic sources
Hey Aoba! I know you're really good with academic sources so I wanted to ask your opinion about the reliability of these that I encountered while preparing the article "Dear Future Husband" for an FAC, namely: "Feminist Standpoint Theory and Meghan Trainor's 'Dear Future Husband': a Rhetorical Criticism", "'Dear Future Husband': young people's critical exploration of gender and sexuality in pop music videos" and "The Liberal Feminism As Reflected In Meghan Elizabeth Trainor's Song Lyrics Of 'Ain't Your Mama and Dear Future Husband'. These kind of things go right over my head because I have never worked with academic sources, lol. It is totally fine if you are busy and cannot help at this time though.--NØ 09:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I am always more than happy to answer any question. I will look through the items you have linked above later today and I will post my opinion about them then if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. Hope you're having a great week!--NØ 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I was on the fence about "Feminist Standpoint Theory and Meghan Trainor's 'Dear Future Husband': a Rhetorical Criticism". I was initially tempted to say no because the article is from LOGOS: A Journal of Undergraduate Research and I was uncertain if undergraduate research would qualify as high-quality, but I think it would be appropriate because the article was accepted by a journal that is published by a university (Missouri State University). That would likely mean that it received feedback and had to go through similar editorial oversight as other journals so I'd say that one should be fine.

"'Dear Future Husband': young people's critical exploration of gender and sexuality in pop music videos" should be good as it is a journal article from what appears to be a reliable publisher so I'd say that one should be fine as well.

I would say no to "The Liberal Feminism As Reflected In Meghan Elizabeth Trainor's Song Lyrics Of 'Ain't Your Mama and Dear Future Husband' because it is a thesis. From my personal experience, experiences with theses, such as the amount of oversight from the advisor(s) and the reader(s), vary wildly so I do not feel comfortable saying that all theses are high quality enough for the purpose of Wikipedia. Plus, theses are written for a specific purpose (i.e. proving that one is qualified enough to have a degree) and are not really intended for the public in the same way as a journal article or book. I know other editors are more supportive of theses, but for me, a lot of factors make me very hesitant to use them on Wikipedia.

Sorry for the long post. For TL;DR: the first two should be fine, but I wouldn't use the third as I would avoid using theses. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the thorough answer; this will help me a lot in identifying appropriate sources in the future as well. Thanks a lot!--NØ 17:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that I could help. Best of luck with the future FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Shannen Says
Checking if you saw my ping on the talk page about the ratings. Probably need to move episode 1 ratings, and remove mentioning that number in body of article for premiere. Was waiting to hear back from you before changing anything, as I know your were updating the article. WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 03:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reminder and apologies for not getting to your original message earlier. I've had work for the past few days so I was not able to fully read your original post on the article's talk page. If you do not mind, could I get to it later today? Thank you and apologies again for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, there's no rush. Was just checking. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 22:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

 * Thank you for the information and I will try my best to review at least a few GANs in the near future to help other editors and the Wikipedia community as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(Informal) PR
Hi there. I've recently expanded yet another actor biography, Oscar Isaac. Who would've seen that coming?! I know I claimed to take a break from BLPs for a while but I did do quite a lot of work on an iconic Gaga song for FA and will finish it in some time. For now though, I was wondering if you could give an (informal) PR, preferably on the article's talk? It's completely understandable if you don't have the time or inclination. FrB.TG (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I will look through the article later in the week or over the weekend if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I look forward to it. FrB.TG (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1
An FAC has been initiated, just so you know. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That is very kind of you to bring up and I really do appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Shannen Says
Hey, sorry for reaching out late. I visited the Peer Review the other day but it had been closed... But tbh, I looked through the article and figured it was pretty decent so my comments wouldn't have been useful either way. Best of luck with the FAC should you nominate it in the future. I realized you've taken it to FAC and it's looking great so far! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message and there's no need to apologize. I did close the peer review earlier than I had planned as I had already received a fair amount of feedback so I did not want to take away from other peer reviews which were still waiting for more reviewers. Hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You just got another FA! I give my kudos. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. I am very grateful for all the reviewers who have helped with the process and as lame as this may sound, I still get excited and feel grateful whenever my FAC is successful. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, and I don't believe that sounds lame at all. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Mick Jagger nominated for FAC
Hello Aoba47, Mick Jagger has been nominated for Featured Article status. If you'd like to take part in the discussion, it can be found here. I am reaching out as you commented on Peer review/Mick Jagger/archive1. I hope that you have a great weekend! -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will try to look through your FAC in the near future. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. I hope you are having a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've reviewed your FAC. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 23:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones Peer Review opened
Hello Aoba47! I greatly appreciated your FAC review of Mick Jagger. I hope to run The Rolling Stones through the gauntlet following another GOCE edit (just filed the request). I was wondering if I could get some input on that early from you to help make FAC a bit easier? If so, I have started a peer review page for comments. Thank you for your time. If you are unable to comment, that is okay as well. The SandDoctor Talk 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. I will post a review either next week or next weekend. Apologies for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Shannen Says scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 August 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/August 1, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. Sounds good to me! Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats. --67.187.73.94 (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

shannen says
hello, Aoba47! i had a question regarding this article and the associated blurb. the blurb and article lead both mention that the series "had low viewership ... despite its popularity among women between the ages of 25 and 54", while the cited broadcasting & cable source states that "the show had a very poor reception" and "was marginally more popular among women aged 25-54 than 18-49 but, in this instance, 'popular' is a relative term". is it possible that the wording used in the blurb and article lead could be seen as possibly misleading if a reader interprets the wording to mean that the show was popular amongst women in the 25–54 age group, without qualification?i am not sure if the intention in the blurb and article lead was to state, without qualification, that the show was popular within that age group, but the cited source appears to explicitly state that the term "popular" was only used in a relative sense. in addition, the show was only "marginally more popular" amongst those in the 25–54 age group compared to those in the 18–49 age group, so if it was not actually popular in the latter group, then presumably it was not in the former either. the source also makes it very clear that viewership was dismal overall by pointing out that, during the period analyzed, the only programs that the show had faired better than were three bridezillas specials, apparently all reruns.by the way, the article body states that "[t]he series was commercially unsuccessful, but it was popular among women between the ages of 25 and 54", so it appears to be more clear in its assertion about the show's unqualified popularity in that age group. dying (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message, and that is a very fair question. I have revised the article (both the lead and the body of the article) as well as the TFA blurb to be more accurate to the citation. I am honestly not sure how this managed to slip by until this point, but I am grateful and happy that you have brought it up. I changed the lead and blurb to "some popularity" and I have pulled "marginally more popular" quote from the article for the body of the article. I agree that it is best to be as transparent as possible. This show was not popular, and I do not want to over-inflate the ratings or give a misleading impression about that. Please let me know if this could be improved further and thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * no worries, i had figured that it was probably just an inadvertent misinterpretation of the source rather than a deliberate misrepresentation. i know i have been guilty of the former, and am grateful whenever someone corrects me, so i am happy that i was able to help out here.  anyway, your edits look good, Aoba47.  thanks for addressing the issue!  dying (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for the article "about an American reality television series that documents the preparations for the wedding of actress Shannen Doherty and photographer Kurt Iswarienko. It aired for an eight-episode season on We TV from April 10 to May 13, 2012. Shannen Says had low viewership and ranked below most other programs when it premiered, despite its popularity among women between the ages of 25 and 54. Critics had mixed reviews for the series and Doherty's role on it. The show was released on the iTunes Store and Amazon Video." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Many congrats on Shannen Says appearing on the main page today. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thank you for your very kind words! I try my best to be a good reviewer, and I am just glad that I could help out with the FAC process. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)