Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve (2003 TV series)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2017.

Eve (2003 TV series)

 * Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is is about ... a UPN sitcom that revolves around two sets of male and female friends attempting to navigate relationships with the opposite sex. The series was developed originally as a vehicle for Eve following the success of Brandy in another of the network's sitcoms - Moesha. Critical response to Eve was mixed; some critics praised its inclusion as a part of UPN's line-up of black sitcoms, while others felt Eve lacked charisma, and the series was inferior to other sitcoms. The show was cancelled following UPN's closure to form The CW.

I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). I primarily based this article on my previous work on Love, Inc., which successfully passed through the FAC process at the end of last year. I look forward to receiving feedback for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

 * I'd replace "With an ensemble cast" to "Featuring an ensemble cast consisting of". Also remove the ":".
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the series was developed as a vehicle for Eve, and Eve did star in the series, I don't think it's necessary to say "developed originally".
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific reason UPN executives made Eve due to the success of Moesha? Is it cause both Eve and Brandy were/are famous singers rr was it due to both of them being black? If an explanation wasn't given then that's alright.
 * It was a little bit of both actually. I have added a small part to the lead to hopefully make this part clearer. Eve's appearance on the show also received comparisons with Queen Latifah's performance on Living Single, but I only included Brandy in the lead as that is the one primarily discussed by outside articles. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Though it was picked up by UPN". Simply say "After being picked up". Considering UPN approached Eve in the first place, it kinda makes it sound like the show was in danger of never being made. Or I might be reading way too much into this. :P
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "The show was set in Miami, but filming took place" -> "While the show was set in Miami, filming took place".
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * When writing The WB's full name, include a capital "T".
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Did critics deem the show inferior in regards to UPN's other black sitcoms or just sitcoms in general?
 * Revised. It should have actually said other black sitcoms so thank you for pointing this part out for me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know Aoba, I will offer additional comments; this are just for the lead section. Will move into the other sections as well pretty soon. I'm sure that once I've looked through the entire article, and any problems I find have been corrected, I will be able to support it.
 * Thank you for your initial comments. I am always the worst with the lead section (primarily because I wait to write them until I am done with the rest of the article). I believe that I have addressed all of your points and made the proper revisions. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Premise and characters

 * Seeing as UPN's full name is used in the lead, just write UPN.

Episodes

 * "with J.T., only to discover that he is afraid of commitment and has chauvinistic tendencies".
 * "but resists the temptation out of fear of ruining their friendship".

Conception

 * Is it necessary to say "of her single"?
 * Put a comma after "approached Eve".
 * Remove "serve to".

Production and filming

 * In "as one example of", does the author refers to other examples of the networks attempt to be diverse or is this the only one? In that case, it should say "as an example".
 * "Jake Austen identifies Eve as part of" not "was of".
 * Don't you mean "Bumper Robinson was originally scheduled to portray J.T."?

Critical response

 * Remove the "has" in "Eve has received".

Alrighty then, these are all the things I found in the article that need reworking. Still can't believe the main body's problems are more-or-less equal to those of the lead section. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review so far. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)|
 * Alrighty then, after having those minor things being changed I can offer my support to this very well-written and informative article. (thumbs up) PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moisejp
Hi. This is generally a very well written article. Comments:

Premise and characters:
 * According to UPN, Eve revolves around "a woman whose fashion career is on the move[,] [b]ut her love life is a work in progress." It's slightly jarring to see "[,] [b]". Would "whose fashion career is on the move [but whose] love life is a work in progress" work? This would also flow more smoothly.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I a little bit disagree with Panagiotis, and would tend to treat each of the lead and main text as being "self-sufficient", such that I would spell out UPN's full name again in the main text. But I know it can be hard in FAC to juggle editors' conflicting requests, so I won't insist on that. But if you were to take on the "self sufficiency of main text" idea even partly, you might consider this article begins a little abruptly, as neither UPN nor Eve are introduced in the main text before we're already describing what a particular TV station is saying the show is about. But, again, it may depend how much mutual awareness you consider the lead and text are supposed to have. So if you disagree with me about this point, no worries.
 * I agree with you, and I have done this with my successful FAC for Love, Inc. so I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding United Paramount Network. But I think I wasn't very clear. My suggestion was supposed to have two parts. The first part was to add United Paramount Network, which you did. But I was also trying to suggest the section begins a little abruptly. My reasoning was that if one considers the main text to be "self sufficient" then the show should be first introduced at a very basic level before stating what the network says about it—and not start piggybacking from the background information of the lead. However, I don't have a specific idea of what the basic introduction in the main text should be, or how other TV FAs handle this—only that it seemed a little abrupt to me. Unless you have an idea of how to make it less abrupt, I guess my suggestion isn't actionable, in which case we could forget about it. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point now. I have removed the UPN part completely from that section and moved the link down to UPN's first mention in the body of the article so that should make it better. Hopefully, the edit cleared that up for you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that helps. Great! Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "seeking a college degree": I'm not sure it's clear specifically what this means. Is he applying to colleges, or already in college and working on a degree?
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nick is described as "extremely picky" in both this section and in Episodes, so it is a bit repetitive. Also "picky" is possibly a little colloquial, and "extremely" is very strong, and may be subjective. None of these are major issues in themselves but they kind of add up as multiple minor issues. Alternatives for the two instances could be, for example, "quite selective" and "very particular about". These are just ideas, though. "Particular about" may not even be so much less colloquial than "picky", maybe only a little. If you happen to be happy with "extremely picky", could you at least change one of the instances to avoid repetition? Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The above changes look good, thanks. More comments:

Lead:
 * Minor point: "The show was initially promoted by UPN as a part of its new comedy block, one of four new comedies developed by the network." This is given importance by being mentioned in the lead, but in the main text the three other new comedies are not named, while the four returning shows are named. This is kind of counter-intuitive, as what is given the extra detail in the main text is not what is included in the lead. Suggestion: name the three other new shows in the main text, rather than the four returning ones.
 * Very good point and I am not sure how I missed that one. I have added the names of the three other new shows (All of Us, Rock Me Baby, and The Mullets) to the main article. I am looking forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The supporting cast of Landry, Desselle-Reid, Hooks, and Maguire were described as "peripheral" as they were written to "servic[e] the highs and lows of the romance between Shelly and J.T." " Could you include who described it as such?
 * Added the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Along with All of Us, Eve was the first time in which "the new network for African American adults has acquired the off-network rights to sitcoms currently airing on a broadcast network". " Did you have a special reason for quoting this rather than paraphrasing? It doesn't feel like a direction quotation is necessary here. Moisejp (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Paraphrased this part. Aoba47 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm almost done my first read-through, Aoba47. I probably will do a really quick second read-through to make sure I haven't missed anything, but I expect my points for this will be minimal.
 * Just wanted to check in on the progress of the review? Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "However, he did note that the series had the potential to last for several years." Is this relevant to the reviewer's critical appraisal? I don't think he's saying this is somehow an indication of quality and that it changes in any way his negative review; rather he's just saying there is a market for this kind of star vehicle regardless of quality. But this is a minor point—no worries if you feel the sentence is worthwhile to keep.
 * That makes perfect sense to me. I have removed it as I agree with your point. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Clark was critical of the episodes' titles, writing that they indicated an overuse of "outrageous clichés that boob-tube audiences would come to know and love once reality TV hit its boon". " Could you include a couple of the examples that Clark mentions? This would go a long way towards helping the reader get a feel for how the reviewer may have thought the titles to be outrageous. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have included the three examples that Clark uses (and they are rather silly lol). Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The tables in the Episodes section and Ratings section show different dates. Is the premiere/finale different from first/last aired? Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I missed this one lol. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ready to support now, thanks for responding to all my suggestions. Please look at the three minor comments above as well. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and provide comments. You have helped to improve the article a great deal and I greatly appreciate that. I look forward to working with you further in the future, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2
I support this nomination. Neat little article. It was a pretty good read. Just a couple of quick comments though:


 * "which is nearly derailed when he cries while they watch Casablanca on their first date" — How did their relationship derail by this? Just asking.
 * Revised to hopefully make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In the "Critical response" section, you mention it received "mixed reviews". Then in the accolades section, it says "negative reviews". Do be consistent about it. :-)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's about it from me. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No mention. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review
ALT text is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:EveTitleCard.png: Image and use seem to be fine.
 * File:Eve 2011 cropped.jpg: Image and use fine, wondering a little about what the source of the crop is.
 * File:Ali Landry 2.jpg: License is fine (reliant on OTRS). Regarding use, I wonder if it's a good idea to highlight the negative opinion about an actor in this way.
 * Thank you for the image review! I agree with your assessment of the Ali Landry image; it is unnecessary to use an image of an actor in such a negative manner, especially since she was only mentioned in two reviews and the addition/emphasis on the image would cause issues by giving undue weight to those two reviews. I think I primarily added it just to put another image, which is not a good move either. I have removed it completely for those reasons. I am also uncertain about the source of the crop, and if there is anything that I can do to look into that further, please let me know. Thank you again for your review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Have been really caught up in RL this past week, will go through this as soon as find some spare time. Most probably in the next couple of days. Numerounovedant  Talk  07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, take as much time as you need as this will most likely be up for several more weeks to receive more feedback/commentary. Hope everything is going well with you, and thank you for taking time out of your schedule for this. I am slowly getting better at being more patient with the process lol. Good luck with current/future projects on here and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find much to point out, most of it looks good to me. It's comprehensive and fairly well written. I have made some very minor changes. The one thing that I'm a little concerned about is the repetiton of certain storylines in Premise and characters and Episodes sections. I think I can recall a few instances of having to go through some facts twice. ayou might wamt to take a look and see for yourself. Numerounovedant   Talk  15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the revisions. They have helped to improve the article a great deal so I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I think some of the info-box facts can use references to substantiate them. Like the runtime, composer(s), camera setup among others. I know some of them might not be the most important, but it's better to have the references there. Let me know if I missed something here. Numerounovedant   Talk  15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can definitely add references to the information in the infobox. I will try to complete it by the end of today and I will put up a message on here when I have completed it. My only concern about this is that is not really a common practice at least in my experience. I was able to pass Love, Inc. through the FAC process without doing this as all of the information is already cited in the body of the article. As I said previously in this message, I can and will do this, but I am not exactly sure of the value of it. I greatly appreciate your commentary, and I just wanted to clarify my point and hopefully get some feedback about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added references for the camera set-up, running time, production company, and distribution company information in the infobox. The information about composer is cited through the show itself so I do not believe that a reference should be included in that context. Let me know if you believe any other instance should have a reference. Also, please read my message as I am a little confused by this as it is different than my previous experiences doing an FAC on television show so I would greatly appreciate your feedback on that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not what I meant. What is was trying to say is that you might want to incorporate these facts into the article itself (See: Last paragraph here for instance). I just believe that some the aspects that are already in the info-box are left of most articles amd it's such a shame that despite having the facts in front of us, we'd rather not have them in the article.  Numerounovedant   Talk  22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes more sense lol. Thank you for the clarification. I have added information about the camera set-up and the episode time to the article. The production company and distribution companies were already in the article. Let me know if anything else needs to be added, and I apologize again for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking good, Support. Well, I totally forgot, did you go through the plot sections? Numerounovedant  Talk  07:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. I went through the plot section again and revised it a little to get rid of redundancy. Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review
Sorry for the delay. I was feeling quite sick this weekend but it appears every reference is well written: There are wikilinks, archives and everything seems to be reliable source. Good job. I give a quick pass as I fail to see any issues.Tintor2 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I hope you feel better soon, and have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I just was wondering what you thought about the status of the nomination? I understand that it is probably best to keep this up for a few more weeks to get more feedback/commentary, and I was curious on what parts of the article you think should get more attention from reviewers (i.e. prose, structure, etc.) to better guide the process along. I hope you both are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.