Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One of the Boys (1989 TV series)/archive1

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

 * Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

An American primetime television series from 1989 with no article until March 2021?! That's the case with One of the Boys (1989 TV series), which I have created and expanded to hopefully becoming a featured article. It is currently a GA and underwent a beneficial peer review by. I welcome any comments and look forward to addressing them. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a ref error: "Snyder 1989. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for catching that, Heartfox (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS
While this is rather short compared to many other TV show pages (which I suspect is at least partially because it only lasted for six episodes), it mostly seems comprehensive. Just get through these as well as Buidhe's concern on a reference error. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * File:One of the Boys 1989 title card.png has an appropriate FUR
 * Given how only one season aired, it wouldn't hurt to include the overall episode count in the lead. I would also expand that to include more production details.
 * Edited.
 * "they wed by the fifth episode"..... in the fifth episode
 * Amended.
 * Is "unsuccessful" pertaining to critical reception, viewership ratings, or both for I Married Dora?
 * Specified with additional Los Angeles Times reference.
 * "better" from "could receive better movie roles afterward" is POV
 * Changed to "thought she could receive better movie roles afterward".
 * When did filming conclude?
 * I was unable to find a source.
 * To avoid WP:SYNTH, I'd try to find a ref to back up the general assessment of "Critics deemed the show unremarkable". Don't make presumptions solely based on reviews already included within Wikipedia pages.
 * I could not find any overall assessments or retrospective comments.
 * Is five reviews all you can find?
 * That's pretty much all there is on Newspapers.com, NewspaperArchive, ProQuest, Gale, and Google News Archive. I believe the fact there was no preview shown to television critics before the premiere has something to do with such little reviews. As you can see from Live-In or even The Masked Singer (American TV series), I do not hesitate to add reviews when they are available.
 * Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Heartfox (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking better. Just two more things: remove the synth, and we may as well mention Clohessy (along with his character) by name given how the show's overarching plot focuses on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited. Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I now offer my support, and the image review passes as well. Very good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I have added an additional image to the article and would like to inform you as you previously conducted an image review. Heartfox (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, the FUR for File:One of the Boys 1989 cast.png is A-OK. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan
I have been waiting for you to nominate something. Given the great quality of your source reviews, I doubt a lot of work will be required but I will give it a look later.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 05:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "a motorcycle-riding Venezuelan immigrant to the United States pursuing the American Dream by leaving her job as a waitress and becoming a bookkeeper at the Lukowski Construction Company" -- The way this is worded seems to place more emphasis on her riding motorcycles than her professions. Is it that notable a characteristic of this character?--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed; it's not notable. Heartfox (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi congrats on AATB! I was just wondering if you had any additional comments for this article. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I am not that familiar with these type of articles, so I randomly read the FAs Kampung Boy (TV series) and House (TV series) as examples. I may use them as a reference for the review.


 * I don't think just saying it is an "American sitcom" gets enough information across in the opening sentence. Is it possible to use a descriptive word between them, like "American romance sitcom" or something else?
 * Genres require sources and to my knowledge there were none that specified it further.
 * Is there a reason the character and actress have similar names?
 * There were no sources that acknowledged the similarity of their names.
 * "who gets hired to work in the office of a small construction company" -- Shouldn't this be active voice? "who begins working in the office of a small construction company"
 * Changed.
 * "quickly marries its widowed owner" -- Not sure "quickly" does much to enhance the reader's understanding here.
 * Removed.
 * "Numerous production companies oversaw filming" -- If there's just five, can't they be named?
 * Five production companies is a massive number for any TV show, particularly one that lasted six episodes. Are you sure it wouldn't be excessive to list all of them for a one-paragraph lead? I did change "numerous" to "five", though.
 * The lead mentions what the reviews referred to, but does not say whether they were favorable or negative.
 * There were no retrospective/all-encompassing sources that described the reviews either way.
 * I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead section. The sentence "It was one of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s." is the best and most attention-grabbing part. Can that be moved up and made the second sentence?
 * Done.
 * "Her best friend Bernice DeSalvo (Amy Aquino) works as a waitress" -- Does she only work as a waitress at Mike and Maria's wedding or all the time? This sentence appears kind of abruptly.
 * I tried reorganizing the paragraph but I really don't know where else to put it to be honest, so I reformatted the section it into a list which more closely aligns with MOS:TVCAST idk. This is back in paragraph form, with the sentence written differently.
 * There's another sentence that mentions things happening "quickly", but isn't this automatically implied since the series had just six episodes?
 * Removed.
 * Shouldn't the article structure be Background - Production - Premise instead of what it is now? I could be wrong, since I am not familiar with writing these type of articles!
 * It's supposed to be plot first but you're not supposed to have a plot section if there are episode summaries, so you're supposed to move the episode table first, but you can't because of the infobox, so cast and characters is next... the MOS a mess TBH but other TV FA's don't follow MOS:TV structure exactly (e.g., Abby, which is what I based this article on originally); every article is different. If you think it flows well that should be what matters.
 * "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing on episodes" -- Change this to "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing in it".
 * Changed.
 * "Scheuer stated she "earns laughs that aren't even in the script" -- What does this mean?
 * Paraphrased.
 * I don't doubt that you have done the best possible with the information available, but the article is still rather small. Critical commentary is limited and some structural issues hinder it from being a compelling and gripping read as of yet. I am regretfully leaning towards oppose.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and reviewing something unfamiliar. I have responded above and done my best to address them. Heartfox (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the article does look better after the changes made.


 * Second and third lead sentences could stand to be merged a bit. "It was one of the only American primetime programs to star a Latin American woman—María Conchita Alonso—that decade. She features as Maria Conchita Navarro, a Venezuelan immigrant to the United States who begins working in the office of a small construction company and marries its widowed owner, Mike Lukowski (Robert Clohessy)." This is accomplishing two things, improving the flow a bit, and moving the repetition of the words "Maria Conchita" out of the same sentence.
 * Changed; thanks for the suggestion.
 * I'm sure a little synthesis would be fine for the lead regarding critical commentary. It seems obvious from reading the paragraph that the comments directed toward the concept and script were negative whereas critics were more favorable to Alonso's acting.
 * SNUGGUMS offered their support because such synthesis was removed, so no.
 * Considering the small size of the article, I would suggest moving the details with citations in the infobox to the Background section. I think cites in the infobox are generally discouraged and the prose could stand to gain a few more sentences.
 * Moved.
 * "Alonso was initially averse to acting in television" -- Would "on television" sound better than "in television"?
 * Changed.
 * The description for the sixth episode is small. Maybe use the episode itself as a reference to expand a bit?
 * The episode is only available at the UCLA Film and Television Archive in Los Angeles.
 * Why do you say there are no sources describing the genre? I randomly opened this one and it clearly describes it as a "midseason replacement comedy".
 * I am confused as to what you are suggesting. "Midseason replacement" is not a genre and it is already described as a "sitcom" (situational comedy).
 * The same article describes Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" character. I think this gives us valuable insight into the character and should be included, again, given the relatively small size of this article?
 * Added.
 * The same Philadelphia Inquirer piece states Alonso had "many talk show visits with David Letterman and Johnny Carson". Why this is being used as a source for "there was little publicity for One of the Boys" is very confusing to me.
 * It is used to cite "She's scheduled to appear on Late Night with David Letterman on Thursday", which is paraphrased as "Aside from Alonso's appearance on Late Night with David Letterman". I unmerged the footnote. The other visits are in the past, not in 1989 promoting the show. I decided to remove the mention of her Late Night appearance.
 * Another insightful quote from the very same article is completely omitted: "My character has class; she's had an education. She's not the often seen fruit-on-the-head, koochy-koochy type."
 * I have expanded the section with more details.
 * "These six episodes were a trial run; One of the Boys would air a second season starting in September 1989 if it was well-received." -- The framing is a bit confusing. From what I understand, they did not go through with the second season. That should be more clear.
 * It is clear in the next paragraph? The sentence sets up what the result of the episodes is. It would air a second season if it was well-received, but in the next paragraph it is explained that it wasn't well-received. I moved this up.
 * My concerns about the omission of important details stated in the sources are by no means exhaustive, as I just opened one article.
 * While I initially thought the coverage received was limited, it seems the article really could be expanded more using even just the sources already included in it. Episodes could be directly used as references to expand on the plot. A picture of the cast or this picture of Navarro could be added so there is some visual demonstration of the people involved. At the moment the article is barely establishing the series's notability, it does not constitute the prose standard that unfamiliar-with-the-topic people coming to it from being featured on the main page will find engaging. I am going to refrain from formally voting but some concerns with regards to criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, and 3, still remain. Regards.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time reviewing the article and leaving further comments; I've responded above. Where do you suggest an image of Alonso be added? It would cause sandwiching issues next to the infobox and leaves a huge white space in the critical reception section because

has to be used. There were no images of the full cast I came across. I would note the article has already passed an image review. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added an image of the cast via the opening sequence. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it has almost been a week and I was wondering if you would like to follow up on your comments/my responses/edits. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, I have been busy with an internship I am pursuing currently. The addition of the cast's picture alone (seems to have) improved the article a lot, though I don't have the time to read it again. Will request the closing coord to ping me before archiving the discussion in case I have time then.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:MaranoFan, pinging as requested. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I am particularly happy about how the rewrite of the Cast and characters section was handled. Would also like to commend the author for seeking out so much print media about an old TV show and uploading the clippings to Newspapers.com themselves.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 06:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * I am uncertain about this sentence, One of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s, the show received inconsistent Nielsen ratings and was not renewed for a second season by NBC., from the lead. It has two different ideas linked together, when I think it may be more beneficial to represent them separately.
 * Moved to the start of the second sentence.
 * I think it would have been better to keep this part later in the lead and just make it into a separate sentence. I do not see a real benefit of adding it to the start of the second sentence as it is just taking a sentence that was already long and dense with information and adding more to it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the last sentence work better? Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks better to me. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance as this is super nitpick-y, but I think the word features sounds a little off in this part, . I think saying would be sound better. For some reason, something about the word features in the context of a plot summary just seems off to me, but it could just be me.
 * Changed to "follows".
 * That works for me. I was actually going to recommend that as an option. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The phrase musical efforts in this part, for her musical efforts, seems odd and unnecessarily vague to me. When I looked at Alonso's Wikipedia article, it seems like she received these nominations for albums so I think it would be much clearer to say that instead.
 * The source (Walstad) refers to one album and one single.
 * Thank you for the clarification. Then why not just shorten the part, she had received two Grammy Award nominations for her musical efforts, to as most people associate the Grammys with music (although they of course give out some awards for non-music ventures like narration). I think the musical efforts part just throws me off. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

These are my only comments and they are very nitpick-y. You have done a very good job with this article, considering how there is so little information out there about this series. I am always happy to see something super obscure like this be brought into the FAC space. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add the years that these movies, Moscow on the Hudson and The Running Man, were released to the prose.
 * Added.
 * Thanks for your comments; don't worry about nitpicks. I've responded above :) Heartfox (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱
Well, time to look at another short article for FA. The cite formatting is perfect, so nothing to say there.

I also will remind reviewers once again that an article being short doesn't make it incomplete. There's a lot of major network shows like this that get coverage only in the moment, and they're so forgotten there's not even any Buzzfeed list to remember them as "all-time classics" (and that cringey blog considers Jimmy Eat World albums and preschool shows classic, for crying out loud!). Trust me, searches for academic literature gave me nothing no matter what keyword tricks I tried. I also don't blame the critical reception section for being so short. All sorts of these shows from the 1980s and 1990s (and even still in the 2000s and 2010s) don't get that many significant opinions on the series themselves, and when they do, it's always for the first two episodes. Heck, good luck finding any newspaper reviews of later seasons of even some of the most-known TV series (I can say this as someone who's worked on Everybody Loves Raymond articles). The point is is that this is as complete as the article's gonna get, so it meets 1b in that regard. I do have some comments:
 * Thank you for your perspective. Yes, and it is even worse with this series because no preview was shown to television writers before the first episode aired. Since that's when most reviews would have been written, a lot less reviews are available to include in this article than even another six-episode one.

👨x🐱 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No section describing the premise of the series? I know the cast and characters section has descriptions, and I know it only ran for six episodes, but still... Given how little there is to describe the other starring actors in this series besides the lead actress, I would just make a non-list, full-prose premise section with the actor's names in parenthesis.
 * I changed it from prose to a list a couple days ago, but I guess I'll just rewrite the whole section into a paragraph again given the limited commentary available regarding the other characters.
 * Does the text in Note A really need to be a note? Why can't it be in prose?
 * Good idea.
 * "Alonso described Navarro as an educated woman with class.[2]" I find this short sentence not only screwing up the flow within the paragraph, but also under-presenting what the source presents. In the interview, she brought up the fact that she has education and class to indicate how different the character was from other Latinos in popular media, which is significant as it's established in the background section (and the note)
 * I will incorporate this in the rewrite.
 * Since Latino representation seems to be the major theme, how were Latinos typically presented in media around the late 1980s before this series? Maria Alonso states in The Philadelphia Inquirer interview that they were usually presented as "poor" or "maids".
 * I will add a sentence about that.
 * "The Philadelphia Inquirer's David Walstad described Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" woman " Nope. The source was interviewing the actress and quoted her as saying that.
 * I have fixed this.
 * "Episode tapings—which used stereo sound[20]" Is this significant in anyway? Every series had stereo audio in the late 1980s. That source certainly doesn't add notability to it as it's a listing, not actual coverage.
 * It is insignificant; MaranoFan suggested stuff cited in the infobox be mentioned in prose (the developer and composer weren't before their review), but I think this particular one is best kept as an infobox footnote.
 * I find the prose in the production, critical reception, and "Broadcast history" sections choppy, like a set of short sentences describing things.
 * I will look at ways to reorganize the sentence structure in these sections, but changes will inevitably be limited as there's not any new content that's going to be added.

Thank you for your comments. I have left some preliminary responses above and will edit the article in depth tomorrow. Heartfox (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed your comments with recent edits to the article. Let me know what you think and thanks again for your time, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been a week since you last left comments and I was wondering what you think of the article now. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good except for one thing. You can't have text between an image and an infobox per MOS:SANDWICH. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the right using the stack template which I've seen on a few other articles. Is that okay? Heartfox (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Assuming "Los Angeles" in the Variety ref should include the state, like the other refs with locations; likewise with Miami, Detroit and Hollywood
 * I don't really understand the consistency in using locations, is there a pattern/some kind of standardization here that I'm missing?
 * Locations are provided when it is not in the work name; states are given when the Wiki article for the location doesn't list it. Should they all give the state? I'm not really familiar.
 * Considering the locations aren't linked to their articles anyways (which is probably for the best), I would think including the state every time makes the most sense. I now understand your approach to including locations or not, but the one that was throwing me off is USA Today—which doesn't seem to satisfy your criteria on that matter. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added states. USA Today has a location when it has a dateline. ProQuest gives McLean, Virginia, as the location of the paper as a whole. Should I include that as well?
 * Our article on USA today does as well, so I would think, of consistency's sake, such an addition is appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added them. Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliability
 * Top notch from what I can tell—and impressive given the subject matter

thanks so much for the source review. I'm open to addressing everything I just have some responses/questions above. Heartfox (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiability
 * I don't really understand "The Meeting" 1989 refs—where in the episode are we getting this information, the credits? Surely there are better sources, if so. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The production information is from the opening and ending credits. However, because it is also used as a footnote for a plot summary I thought it would not make sense to list the credits as the info source so it's just the episode in general. Because most (but not all) was also listed in Leszczak, his book is cited as well.
 * Makes sense, but I'm wondering if that can be made clear in the ref; i.e. putting "(credits)" or something somewhere—if you see what I mean? Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; this is my first time using sfn in an article so I didn't know about the loc= paramater. I've added them in the refs.
 * I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)