Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soprano Home Movies


 * 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 00:30, 10 March 2008.

Soprano Home Movies


Self-nomination Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite The Sopranos epsiodes as a Featured Article Candidate because I think it qualifies. I modeled it after the Pilot (House) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost) articles. Although not as long and comprehensive as the latter, (because there simply is more information about Lost than The Sopranos) I think it covers all important aspects and follows Television episodes closely. The article looked like this before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I know that the ratings part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that. –FunkyVoltron talk 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Peer review closed after three days. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So…? – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah,, Opark 77 helped me with copy-editing, which was the main thing, and I also did the automated review and made some changes accordingly.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support I made some changes. In the lead, actors' names are given in parentheses, but this is not consistent with the rest of the article so something needs to be changed. – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done I changed the production section so it's now consistent with the lead.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the supporting and objecting section close to the top of the main FAC page, it says, "Graphics are discouraged as they slow down the page load time." – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the last paragraph of the lead, trying for better prose. I crossed out done stuff above, elaborated on one issue, and added another. I still have a bone to pick with the redundant interwiki links. There is a value to repeating some links occasionally, but not on every occurrence just because there's a section break after the previous link. Common sense applies. David Chase is linked in the infobox, three times within the article text, once in the references, and once in the navigational footer. Matthew Weiner is linked almost as much, except he's not in the footer. The Sopranos is linked in the lead, twice in the nav footer, and 3 times in the text. There is no value in linking United States multiple times, nor DVD. Maralia (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrote your rewrite a little. The focal point of the episode is not actually Tony's birthday, it's the weekend spent at the vacation home. Shortened instances of The Sopranos to Sopranos. Removed every interwiki link in the world! Changed FBI to FBI on The Sopranos. Everything should be OK now, unless you're not pleased with my rewrite of the last paragraph of the lead. See anything else?–FunkyVoltron talk 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Your rewrite of my rewrite was good, except for the awkward phrase "details a weekend series protagonist Tony Soprano" (just too many nouns) and a subject/verb agreement problem. I've fixed both, although the former is admittedly a really kludgy fix. I'm satisfied on the linking issues now. Maralia (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised someone hasn't pointed out that Vincent Curatola as Johnny Sack DOES actually appear in this episode. In the flashback. Heh! Can't believe no one caught this since it's an obvious contradiction in the article. Well, I fixed it now. I also added the name of actors in parentheses who are not listed in the lead to the plot summary.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First caption is just a nominal group—fine; but the second caption is a sentence, so needs a final period.
 * Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle praised the episode, writing "the series remains as vital and interesting as ever [...] There may be no better (or realistic) way to go forward into this Sopranos swan song."[12]—In the original, is "ever" followed by a period, or other punctuation? Looks as though it should have. The ellipsis dots need to reflect this. See MOS. Final period after the closing quotes (see MOS and fix throughout for quotes that start within WP sentences).
 * Why the bold in Ref 2? Tony   (talk)  01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerns addressed. In Tim Goodman's article, "ever" is not followed by a period or other punctuation. The bold ref is because it's the episode in question.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looking good, even though I'm not a Sopranos fan ;) Just a few things:
 * Do we really need all that linking in the plot summary? I'm pretty sure people intellectual enough to find their way onto a webpage about a Sopranos episode (let alone be interested in reading it) would know what murder, karaoke, a DVD and a firearm were.
 * "This was an idea of executive producer/co-writer Matthew Weiner, whose sister actually used to tape-record him as a child" - any use for that 'actually' in there?
 * "In preparation for shooting the episode, series creator David Chase held several rehearsals" - I'd personally label him executive producer, not series creator, in this context; that seems to be more relevant.
 * "The scenes in Montreal were actually filmed in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn" - how about 'the scenes set in Montreal...' just for clarification?
 * As above for "Filming of the scenes in New Jersey and the Soprano residence took place..."
 * Maybe cut short the only Ratings sentence at "same number of viewers" - the episode name begins the sentence and isn't really necessary to repeat.
 * Any reason why the writers are listed as "Diane Frolov & Andrew Schneider and David Chase & Matthew Weiner" in the infobox - that is, separated by &s and ands?
 * Otherwise, a pat on the back, well done! • 97198   talk  13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed concerns. Kept most links in plot summary; I think it's OK. Settled on "series creator/executive producer" for Chase. Writers listed like that because they're two writing teams who collaborated on the episode. Left the ratings section unchanged unless you absolutely feel like it's necessary to change it.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support A nice, well-referenced article. I'd be tempted to combine the short 'Ratings' section with 'Critical response'. The JPS talk to me  13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kept ratings section. See above.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: please explain the use of a blog as a source (http://creativescreenwritingmagazine.blogspot.com/2007/09/sopranos-pre-emmy-q.html ), and WP:PUNC attention is needed throughout. What makes this a reliable source? http://www.cheaptelevision.co.uk/ Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That source is reliable because it's a notable screenwriting blog featuring podcasts with many screenwriters, in this case episode co-writer Matthew Weiner. There really is no other way of obtaining that information online because no one cares about the writers....just the damn actors and their private lives. See? If that's not enough...I'll remove it and shorten the production section as a result. The other one...I really don't know. I just used episode lists I found that still listed the episode under the working title. It's pretty hard, not to say impossible, to find truly reliable sources here so bear with me. As for the punctuation...sigh, I'll try to get down to it. See anything in particular, like a section, that's in special need of attention?–FunkyVoltron talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this one, which also appears to be a blog: 'Sopranos Final Titles and Dates'. Steve  T • C 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some thing as above.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funky, I pointed you to a blog that says it's written by someone named Jeff Goldsmith; you replied that it's reliable because it discusses co-writer Matthew Weiner. What makes Jeff Goldsmith's blog reliable?  Please focus on WP:SPS and specifically explain the use of these sources, including links and info that substantiate the reliability. I can't see how a commerical cheap TV site can be reliable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I explained to you that the blog contains actual interviews with screenwriters. If they're not reliable just because they're on blogs...I really am at a loss. If you look at the article, most of the reviews are blogs too, the only difference is that they're blogs on magazine and newspaper websites. I don't see the logic. In fact, I would say that creative screenwriting is more reliable than any interview or article with the writers because it's an unedited interview with a writer. That other site simply is not reliable but it's the only thing I could find. I guess no one has to know about the episode's working title.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not being clear enough :-) On Joe Blow's blog, with no idea who Joe Blow is or whether he's a complete fraud, how do I know the interview is real? On a magazine or newspaper site, I have their reputation behind the blog interview.  If I don't know who Joe Blow is, why should I trust him to represent the interview correctly?  What makes him credible, what is his journalistic reliability, what is his fact-checking factor ?  Who *is* he, anyway?  We don't use self-published sources unless they are from experts published in the field:  see WP:SPS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really can't explain it any better than that. So there, I removed all that stuff. Anything else?–FunkyVoltron talk 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no need to go that far. All you really have to do is present evidendce that Creative Screenwriting Magazine, and therefore the blog of its senior editor (Mr Goldsmith), is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. It shouldn't be too difficult; the magazine itself has received coverage in other notable publications, so looking through those links might be a good start. Steve  T • C 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuhgettaboutit! It's not worth it. It's just a largely irrelevant piece of trivia anyway. Because the production section was spreading so thin, I added some other stuff that's referenced.–FunkyVoltron talk 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Steve :-) Eighteen Eagle Scout points coming your way for demonstrating an understanding of WP:SPS and providing a clue to the needed info. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.