Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cheers

Cheers
I have worked on this article quite a bit, adding text, images, and sub-articles to fill out and further explain sections (changes from my first edit to current). Then Cheers went through a peer review and really got organized. I have tried to stay in keeping with previous Featured TV show articles (Arrested Development and The West Wing), and I hope I can have your support! Staxringold 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and Support. Staxringold 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work, this is one of the best sources of information on the show I've ever seen.--Cuchullain 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not ready to support just yet, though the writing is good, and it's structured and balanced well, something many candidates here lack. I'm a little worried about the Shelly long suicide bit. That source is a little sketchy, so I think it would be better to say, according to ___ it appeared..., or similar. A higher quality source would be better there too. I'm assuming there are some books written on the series. That would make a valuable compliment to the online sources. - Taxman Talk 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Comment. Overall I think this is an excellent and well done article.  I have one question: in the second paragraph, the reference for Gary Portnoy is an external link whereas the other refs are all use the ref/note system.  Can this Gary Portnoy ref be formatted like the others?. Rlevse 14:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Issue fixed, and promptly. Rlevse 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Added a second source for the Long overdose, and ref'ed the Gary Portnoy link. I looked for print sources, but really couldn't find much (my school's library archive of old magazines JUST skips over the Cheers run, so not even magazine reviews or something). Staxringold 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, though I wouldn't mind further development of the critical reaction section, and I agree with Taxman's comments about the value of print references. --Spangineer (háblame)  22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a couple possibilities: The Cheers Trivia Book (Paperback) by Mark Wenger (0806514825) and Toasting Cheers by Dennis A. Bjorklund (0899509622). They look useful, and might be in a library somewhere (they don't appear to be on Google books yet). --Spangineer (háblame)  22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fantastically enough, the Toasting Cheers book is in the Perry-Castañeda Library. I will get it tonight and take a look at it to see if it can help. &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added and further confirmed a ton of stuff with the book, big thanks to Scm. Staxringold 00:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment and support Is it ok to link to a blog? I'm referring specifically to reference 13. Gflores Talk 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Yowza! Thanks for pointing that one out (upon further digging the guy actually later references the Cheers article and that reference on his site to try and point out flaws in Wikipedia's credibility). I know I've read about the spitball fight somewhere, but I'll reword it for now and cite a different source. Staxringold 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. We need more well-sourced articles about popular television shows, like this one. &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It is certainly refreshing to see a good TV article, not based solely around bulky and pointless plot summaries, like many current FAs are. Spangineer's comments are, without a doubt, worth taking into account for additional improvements, though I believe this article meets all FAC criteria already. -Rebelguys2 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Object. Great article, but the structure strikes me as being odd, and not flowing particularly well. It starts off logically enough, but then delves into things like "critical reviews" before really trying to tell us what the show is actually about. Secondly, I think it does need an actual plot section, explaining even briefly some of the storylines and character dynamics. While the themes section is interesting, it seems to delve somewhat into trivia, and really doesn't tell the reader all that much about the actual show - crucial things like the Sam/Diane relationship are skimmed over in one tiny (and quite oddly-worded) paragraph. Ambi 06:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. All perfectly fair statements. I'll move Critical reactions down below the themes section. I'll also go fatten up the Romance section and try to build up some kind of plot summary there. However, the reason I went with a themes section rather than a plot analysis is that Cheers is a sitcom. There really wasn't much of a cohesive plot to the show, nor was there much of a "standard episode" the format of which can be discussed. Sitcoms rarely have episode-by-episode summarys or season summarys, and even TWW's article (which has signifigantly more plot) has them on the subpage for articles. Staxringold 12:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that you're not going to have great dramas to write about, but it'd still be nice to have more explanation of the show's dynamics, whether it be through trying to cover the show's history or having a section about the characters or such. I'm just not convinced the thematic breakdown works very well here - it seems to leave a rather incomplete picture. Ambi 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, the more I think about it I think I can see where you are coming from. I'll try using a paragraph of general episode breakdown as the lead for the Plot section, so that Romance is an actual subsection...

Staxringold 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks great now. Fantastic work! Ambi 02:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. If external link section is expanded with reviews/fans sites (aren't there any?). I see some used in notes (which are entitled references). This is kind of confusing: notes should link to references, and references should have a list of sources used - currently the notes, whole well done, duplicate many sources making it difficult to quickly tell how many different references were used. Once this is sorted I'd gladly support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure what you are looking for.. Currently every single one of the links under references links up to a sentence that was unknown enough that it needed confirmation from an outside source, which is what the outside links are for. I'll go expand the External Links section with Cheers sites I haven't used as references, but Wikipedia style dictates (I thought) that you don't duplicate links in references and in External links (hence the thin links section). Staxringold 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right that MoS gets kind of confused when it comes to foonotes and such. My recent attempt to deal with this here has been judged by some as 'too long'. I wonder what's the Golden Middle here...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues)I'm sorry, I think this article really needs more work. The lead is longer than it needs to be, includes several repetitions (for example, do both C-B-C and its three principals need to be mentioned),
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I have no idea what CBC means, and the lead covers exactly what leads are supposed to per WP:LEAD, in that it recites the show from creation to it's finale and gives a short synopsis. And there is absolutely no repetition, so I don't know what you are referring to (unless you mean mentioned Charles-Burrow-Charles twice, but the name of the production company and the name of the show's creators are seperate facts). It goes Intro Sentence-Creation-Reactions While on Air-Finale-Show Summary, exactly as both Arrested Development and TWW do (in fact, as all bio articles for people do as well. Intro that says who they are, birth, lifetime achievments, death).
 * I still think the lead could be tightened up substantially, but the only repetition I see after rewrites is the 11-season run mentioned twice (in consecutive sentences!). Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed that (actually reworded the sentence a little bit). I'm happy to rework these things if you can show me examples of what you mean. Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * includes information (for example, regarding the themesong) that's not otherwise referenced in the main text.
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) The theme song is one fact, as is in fact mentioned at the end (that the intro sequence has become infamous enough to be a target of parody), but I'll add on the themesong just to make it clearer. The purpose of that information in the lead, however, was to further explain the plot summary of a neighborhood bar where everyone knows you.
 * ''The lead should be a summary; when information is mentioned only in the lead, either the information should be moved to the main text, or expanded on there. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, the song is mentioned in the main article. And as in my previous response, examples are more helpful than blanket statements (as I don't see any examples of this). Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The table of main characters is a particularly bad idea; it should be converted into text and substantially beefed up (and the years the players were cast regulars should be added).
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Text would be unreadable. The West Wing has a character table (which you didn't seem to have a problem with when you commented on its FAC), and the only reason Arrested doesn't have one is the characters don't have sub-articles. As for the player's years, that is a very good idea. I tried it once on the infobar but it screwed up formatting, it would work better here.
 * Strongly disagree. I know tables are used like this in other articles, and it hurts those articles, too. Too many editors use tables for the sake of using tables, and they impeded the presentation of real information. The "Arrested Development" article uses a text format, and it's much more effective than the "West Wing" article. A general description of the show's set of characters, with a more detailed paragraph for each major character, maybe bullet-pointed, would greatly improve the article. The existing treatment is greatly inadequate. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and if you disagree with my formatting choice I apologize, but each main character is sufficiently deep that to discuss them on the main article would be crazy, hence the split-off'ing with the character table used on other FA TV articles (like TWW). Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The "post-Cheers" section isn't terribly appropriate, and is, frankly, not very good. Not good at all.
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I included the section at all as I feel it's important to see how a show that lasted this long affected people's career (we're talking about more than a decade of work for some of these people). I'll deal with your issues on particular sections now.


 * Woody Harrelson has had a very successful film career, including an Oscar nomination, but gets only a single sentence.
 * By the time you get through with post-Cheers, and crossovers, and spinoffs, etc, barely half the article is actually devoted to the show itself. That's a bad idea, and expanding these sections doesn't help. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The effect of a show on society is just as important, if not moreso, than the show itself. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But you're not talking about the effect of the show on society. You're talking not-terribly unusual events in popular media. TV shows refer to other TV shows; TV shos spin off from other TV shows; actors keep acting after they leave one TV show or another. Kirstie Alley's weight gain and Shelley Long's depression aren't exactly earthshattering changes in the social fabric. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the actors, being so young (save maybe Alley with her appearance in a Star Trek film) was particularly widely known. Most of them owe the very notability that has them on Wikipedia to begin with to Cheers. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) The point of linking on Wikipedia is that every topic mentioned doesn't have to be cover 100% as there are sub-articles for it. I added the Oscar nod as it was a big deal, but you cannot have whole careers for each actor/tress on the show.
 * Just adding boilerplate sentences about players having "numerous" theater/film/TV roles after appearing on the show makes the section even mushier and uninformative. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Again, you don't provide complete bios of every single person involved with the article's topic, but is important for a show completely (since Colanasto died) cast with young people to see how the actor's careers moved after the show (Seinfeld and the Seinfeld curse). Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Another example of what I mean by inadequate research; I don't know why you describe a cast like that of Cheers, who were mostly mid/late-thirties to early forties when originally cast as regulars, as "young" -- they certainly weren't "young" by TV standards. The average age of the Seinfeld regulars when that show ended was pretty close to the average age of the Cheers cast members when their regular roles began (and most of the Cheers cast, except Harrelson, were undisputably Wikinotable before joining the show. And I recommend the Seinfeld article as a good model for discussing the main (and recurring) characters in a TV show. You know, the Seinfeld article was better than this article when it came to FAC, and was rejected. The editors who proposed it seems to have been working hard on improving the article, rather than responding defensively. Monicasdude 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bebe Neuwirth has had significant film and Broadway theatre roles, entirely unmentioned.
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Added.


 * The implication that Danson had "a rocky history in finding work after the hit series" is pretty silly; after a few years of 8-figure salaries as the series wound up, it's not like he's out there pounding the pavements. And his imdb entry shows him as pretty active -- he just doesn't do much movie work while he's got a TV series on the air any more (and that's probably his choice).
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Reworded the rocky history bit as it was a bit POV.


 * Too much space is given to the Wndt/Ratzenberger lawsuit -- and the most recent citation is to 2000 events, surely something has happened in the last six years!
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) It's a potentially groundbreaking lawsuit! As for time passing, I did search long and hard when it was originally added and couldn't find anything. I found something just now, on another look, that said Paramount settled (so I reworded the section).
 * The current version is disproportionately long; it's factually inaccurate (for example, Wendt and Ratzenberger didn't ask SCOTUS to hear the case, since they'd won the immediately prior lower court decision); it really wasn't very important, and it has next to nothing to do with any important aspect of the show. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is simply an out and out lie. They did ask SCOTUS, as sourced by two seperate sources (actually several more with a simple Google search, I just didn't think we needed 10 sources for every sentence[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what has provoked this incivility, especially since you're dead wrong. Wendt and Ratzenberger won their appeal, and Paramount asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. It says so quite explicitly, for example, in one of the E!Online pages you cite. The side that wins a case doesn't ask a higher court to review/overturn their victory. That's not an obscure point. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've now fixed it. I was not trying to be mean, but you seem to purposefully (in TWW's FAC as well) attempt to derail FACs. The fact that the suit was brought to SCOTUS by Paramount and not the men was in the very final sentence of the article. I did miss it. I'm not going to even try and deny that fact. What bothers me is that had you merely said that rather than continuing with these vague complaints, only showing examples when pressed, the thing would have been solved days ago. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Kirstie Alley's professional work (a moderately successful TV series, quite a few miniseries, and roles in almost a dozen films, including the female lead in a Woody Allen project) is dismissed in favor of a discussion of her weight.
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Added.


 * The Shelley Long discussion is also malformed, suggesting that her divorce and depression followed soon after she left the show, rather than 15 years, after her successful (if not sensational) film career tailed off.
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Reworded and added.


 * In other areas, the show was noted as well-written and well-directed, yet the off-camera craftworkers are almost entirely unmentioned. (They won just about as many Emmys as the stars, too, and that's also unmentioned.)
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I'll add further notes to the awards section.
 * Writing and directing awards aren't technical awards, and the winners should at least be named. It's too often standard Wikipedia practice to deprecate the work of off-camera talent/craftsworkers, and it's bad practice.Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then tell me what you want. It is not the job of Wikipedia to bend to your personal will, and everything cannot be provided on one page. If it was, Wikipedia itself would be one page. Each of the writing and directing awards are given to several different people, and different groups each time they are awarded. Half of your complaints are about sections being too long, and this complaint would require a section as long as the article is currently to fully credit everyone who won an award. That's why the table says it's a summary of those who won, with a direct source link to a full table. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are, again, dead wrong about the writing and directing awards; just refer to the listings at the IMDB, via the link you cite. It's mistakes like this that provoked my comments about inadequate research. Monicasdude 19:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As others have noted, the discussion of the show's critical reception should be expanded. The article really needs a coherent narrative history of the show; right now, the article is like a tree that's virtually all branches and no trunk.
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Of course expansion would be nice, but the important piece of critical reaction (that it saved the show) is mentioned. Anything further is just going to be fluff, and hard to dig up fluff at that.
 * Now that's just wrongheaded. Nobody would say (I hope) that, in an article about an individual performer (musician, actor, whatever), that only the initial critical reaction that made them notable should be covered. If critical reaction is important -- and nobody disputes that -- it should be treated comprehensively. Monicasdude
 * I'll add some more information from Toasting Cheers. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And David Angell and Tip O'Neill (among others) are more worth mentioning than a barely notable incident on Australian television. Monicasdude 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) How is a producer who died on 9-11 or a Democractic House member related to Cheers? Staxringold 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, David Angell appears to have been a writer and producer on the program, and Tip O'Neill played himself as a guest on the program . Whether or not Angell's contributions are significant enough to be in the article I'll leave for others to disucss, but having the then-current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives appear on a television sitcom as himself should be included in a serious article about the program, as it is illustrative of the show's reach and popularity. I also seem to remember that a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (maybe Admiral William J. Crowe, but I'm not sure) played himself on another episode. Gentgeen 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew about Angell, I couldn't include everyone on the crew. As for O'Neill, that is interesting. Think I should add some kind of "guest star" section? (I know John Cleese actually won an Emmy for his guest appearance) Staxringold 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dismissing Angell as part of the "crew" on Cheers is like dismissing Philippa Boyens as part of the crew on "Lord Of The Rings." The on-camera performers don't write or stage the shows by themselves, and comprehensive articles about TV shows should appropriately reflect the important contributions of off-camera talent. Not getting my reference to O'Neill indicates, frankly, inadequacies in your research; as Gentgeen noted, it was an extremely unusual event.Monicasdude
 * I find that a little insulting. First off, no article on Wikipedia has comprehensive information within the article on every crewmember, or even every major crewmember. Heck, you brought up LotR, the The Lord of the Rings film trilogy articles don't discuss Peter Jackson, and I'd say he's rather important. As for O'Neill, yes it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't know what you are expecting. He appeared in one episode, you expect me or anyone else to have guest stars from every episode memorized? And you dodged around my question of if you think an actual guest star section is appropriate (because, if not, where would you put O'Neill?)


 * The LOTR movie articles aren't very good, and, despite what you say, pay more attention to Jackson than to any of the on-camera cast members. As for guest stars, I expect the editors contributing to an FA to do adequate research, and I think expecting them to, at a minimum, review the information in the IMDB is not out of line. The number and prominence of real-life figures appearing on the show as themselves is much more noteworthy, in the context of an article about the show, than events in the actors' lives a decade or more later. And your continued deprecation of off-camera creative talent as "crewmembers" is wrongheaded; the contributions of directors and writers are generally as important as the contributions of most performers. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * :) You can try to insult my research all you want, but no one would take an off-the-cuff remark about a Speaker to mean that he had guest starred in the series at some point... And you still haven't commented on which complaint you actually feel is correct, that the non-show elements to the show are too long, or that guest stars need their own section because they are notable enough. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ''More generally, I still don't think the article is close to FA quality yet, despite improvements. In terms of writing, it needs a thorough cleanup to remove unencyclopedic text -- e.g, phrases like "Sam's wacky antics," "sassy waitress Carla Tortelli," "whatever relationship troubles he was in that week," "her original rich dreams," "some other legal scam," and "he got her pregnant." There are still some dubious if not clearly wrong comments which at the very least need sourcing -- e.g., "Cheers didn't show any action outside the bar until later into the series";  "some other legal scam that grew out of [the Tortellis'] divorce"; "However, she encountered a glass ceiling." Some critical opinions/interpretations are written into the article as factual (e.g., "each of the major female characters being a flawed feminist in her own way") -- even when sourced, opinion is opinion. You really should take a look at the list of prominent figures who appeared as themselves on the show -- aside from O'Neill and Crowe, there were also two presidential candidates, one Kennedy, and several sports figures. But the most important problem is the lack of substantive information about the show itself -- while the "Arrested Development" article needs work, its structure is much better than one for this article. Monicasdude 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm happy to go through and fix these things, but these examples are much more useful than blanket complaints. As for sourcing on the action outside the bar, it is absolutely sourced! What's the very first source listed under references? "Cheers. Created by James Burrows, Glen Charles and Les Charles. 1982-1993. Broadcast and DVD." Not everything requires outside sourcing when simple viewing of the program shows something.


 * If you're saying that you watched the the first however many seasons yourself and are making observations from your own viewing, that's a violation of WP:NOR, whether those observations are correct or incorrect. And, given that scenes in Season 4, relatively early in the series, were set in Diane Chambers' apartment, the observation is incorrect. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NOR applies when it is original research. It is not OR when the show is cited as a source and you include information from that show (again, Carla is a waitress is not sourced, because it is in the show very clearly). And the 4th season is later into the show, exactly as the article said already. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should review the NOR policy more carefully. The NOR policy is fairly clear; statements like the one at issue here violate the policy unless this exception applies: "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge." I don't think anyone can fairly say that a statement which requires someone to watch (at a minimum) 24-36 hours of a television series, keeping track of the location sets involved, is "easily verified." Monicasdude 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't source that Homer Simpson is the father of The Simpson family, because it is simply known from watching the show. And again, do you think a guest star section (maybe sub-section of the cast section) is appropriate? What you seem to have done is complain, rather than suggest fixes or comment on suggested fixes, which is a lot less helpful. Staxringold 18:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reread the FA candidates page. What I've done is object, and stated a rationale for my objections. That's all that is called for. Too many editors pushing FA candidates believe they have a Wikipedia-given right to have "their" articles promoted unless editors who object also do the work of fixing up the articles. That's not policy. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose. The internet links in the references section need to have correct dates attributed to them. For example, the article about Long attempting suicide was not written in 2006 as the section says. You need separate dates for when it was written (or no date, if it's not dated) and when it was retrieved as a source. Andrew Levine 18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Wikipedical 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I went ahead and added the guest star section, just so you guys know. Staxringold 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.Cool page. I am a big fan of Cheers, and you covered all the bases. Great job, my definite pick for featured page.Afrohead 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Added all the available dates. Staxringold 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Object The production info satisfies my main objection, so, while I'm not supporting, I am no longer objecting. This simply reflects my current approach to FAC, where I'm attempting to interpret FA in a practical manner by only addressing things that I see as really out of sync with a basic application of FA criteria, when they don't seem to be being addressed by others (e.g. I have read/reviewed about half of the current FACs, and where I have no comment, I am explicitly not objecting.). My other Cheers suggestions would IMO still further improve the article. :) Thanks for the extra material. --Tsavage 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Apologies for the "late" objection, but since this is still open, and an initial round of FAC improvement edits has been made, here's my contribution to the review based on the current version...) On the main grounds for objection, I find this article not comprehensive. In general terms, it covers only certain aspects of a "TV series", while entirely omitting others, notably, series production. The coverage here principally concerns only three areas:
 * cast (not crew) Specifically, the actors and their characters are covered at length, to the exclusion of other participants in the making of this show.
 * Comment No television article substantially covers the crew. The reason? There are hundreds of them. Give me some idea of what you want and I'll add it. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * storyline and episodes - including "social impact" of aspects of same.
 * Comment As I said to Monicasdude, the documented impact of episodes is as important as their actual content. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * awards and other show rating/ranking data
 * This may be fine for entertainment media coverage, aimed at consumers of the show, but it is certainly incomplete for encyclopedic coverage, where ALL the basic aspects of a topic must be considered. One of those aspects is production information: how the show was actually put together. The "product" is a collection of stored audio and images. HOW those were...configured is naturally part of the fundamental nature of the show. I made the same objection to the (recently promoted) The West Wing, where it was ignored (although that article did have some production information). One comment there was to the effect that "we don't need to know what aspect ratio it was shot in". I agree. What is required is simply basics. For example:
 * where was the show shot - apparently, the interior of the Bull & Finch was recreated in LA studios, while the Boston exterior was used in the series.
 * was it shot in front of a live audience?
 * was it considered innovative in any way for a sitcom, at its inception or later on? Usually, hit series do innovate in production areas (handheld camera, use of a signature shooting style, largely one-take, reliance on ad libs, novel approach to writing, etc etc). Putting this series in context with other similar series is necessary. If its production was entirely unremarkable compared to others, that in itself is notable.
 * I'll try to add what I can find. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an unreasonable expectation, nor is production information somehow self-evident and therefore unnecessary, as the numerous "making of" documentaries for TV series and films helps demonstrate -- there is general interest in such info, beyond the simple logic that "what something is must be described, and a TV show is more than just actors and scripts that magically make it to tape". In an apparently appended section, a list of technical awards is included, which only begs the question: What exactly were they for? What was so great about the editing in 1984 that won it an Emmy? And so forth. An exhaustive technical breakdown is NOT REQUIRED. A balanced coverage in addition to actors, plot and awards is.
 * In addition to my main objection, I find some additional coverage of the music used/soundtrack, and the absence of any treatment of the business aspect (was this a particularly big moneymaker? how much did an episode cost? etc etc) also missing aspects. Again, excruciating detail is NOT required and not even desirable, simply, a summary of the most important facts.
 * Given your requests, I may just add a "Production" section that includes all of this. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also find the prominent and early use of tables to present lists is essentially "poor writing". A list, if at all necessary, belongs at the end. If the content is centrally important to the development of the core article, it should be incorporated as such. A list provides no summary, no context, and detracts from readability. One doesn't simple run into a huge table and "read through it", tables are generally (and very much so in this case) and obstacle.
 * Tables are not an obstacle. Come on. Summarizing the information in the awards or cast section into text would take far more room and be far more confusing. The only reason Arrested uses a textual coverage for their cast is that none of the characters have sub-articles. The cast table is just a more complete version of the For complete ____ see ____ split-off links, and the awards table would be crazy as straight text. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, the overall balance of detail is uneven. What is included and what is not included often seems arbitrary. Specifically, with I categorically agree with Monicasdude's itemized objections. Some overlap mine, others, I wouldn't necessarily have listed if they hadn't already appeared. That said, I find none of those simply...whimsical, they all address the core FA criteria in a reasonable manner. --Tsavage 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as what though? The impact of the show is important. The largest complaint I saw from Monicasdude was too much focus on that lawsuit, but that's one measly paragraph on what might have been groundbreaking legally. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional note: I just read for the first time Arrested Development. As far as content, it is so much better: if that outline were applied to this article, maybe less than half the areas covered there are dealt with here. With that as an example (and "FA standard" of sorts), it should be easy to understand the shortcomings mentioned here... --Tsavage 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just added a production section that hopefully deals with most of your issues. Staxringold 14:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, good article. --Ter e nce Ong 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: shoudn't be difficult to sort these things out though:
 * First issue is that the reference to critics of the way the show dealt with alcoholism is from MegaEssays.com, a school essay cheat site. It's both unsourced and, IMO, an unreliable opinion. Our references must be verifiable and notable. Suggest that another reference is found for this point.
 * The lead section should introduce any facts that aren't in the main article. This means that there is no need for any footnotes (except with an exception such as clarifying birth date or the spelling of someone's name). Suggest removing these.
 * Any chance of moving to the new footnote scheme? are better. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the sentence, as all the refs I could find were just links to that essay, and replaced the ref system with the new one. I have left the few refs that are in the lead in the lead as I think removing them would require some really awkward wording... Staxringold 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)