Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temperatures Rising/archive3


 * 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016.

Temperatures Rising

 * Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising is a sitcom that I enjoyed immensely when it originally aired in the United States on the ABC network back in the early 1970s. Although it has yet to be made available commercially on DVD I have been able to obtain some episodes via a private source. I still think it is a very funny show and would like to see it brought back into circulation. My interest in the series inspired me to learn as much as I can about its history. Thus I have spent the last few years accumulating a large amount of information about the series (mainly vintage newspaper articles). Using this information I re-wrote and greatly expanded this article last year and attempted to elevate it to FA status in January of this year. The article was not promoted despite the support of four people. Since then the article has achieved GA status. I have had several friends (many of whom are published authors) look it over and offer comments to improve it and, just last week, it received a "makeover" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

I am now making another attempt at FA status. If anyone can make suggestions on how to improve this article please feel free to over up any that you have. Also note that some of episodes of Temperatures Rising are available for viewing on YouTube. Take a look and have a few laughs. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: The prose looks fine. I can't fine any other issues. Great job.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
- SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Four dead links need looking into
 * Three fixed and one deleted.
 * Pilato in the bibliography isn't used in the article and should be removed
 * Removed.

Sorry it's a bit bitty, but I've got a full work schedule at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (October 16, 2007): I think we can cut the date back to 2007, rather than the full date.
 * Cut back to just 2007. Jimknut (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – I supported last time. Looking at the later comments on that review I think I understand why that candidacy didn't go through, but this one looks pretty solid to me. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria.  Tim riley  talk    17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – I have gone through the article and its previous archives to see whether or not everything has been resolved. I can't find anything to complain about. Good work. --  Frankie talk 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * Way too many fair use images. You could probably get by with File:Temperatures Rising.jpg and maybe File:Temperatures Rising Second Season.jpg, but File:Nancy Fox, circa 1971.jpg just doesn't meet the contextual significance criterion of WP:FUC. Her physical appearance does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and removing it would not be "detrimental to that understanding". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit of a loss to fully understand how a mere three photographs could be construed as "way too many". However, I have removed the portrait of Nancy Fox per your suggestion.  The other two show the different cast members of the first and second seasons so I think they're essential to the article. Jimknut (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FUC if you are not sure how three photographs is too many, particularly the part about "minimal usage" and "contextual significance". Although one is preferable to two, considering the drastic cast change you're illustrating, I am alright with the current selected images.
 * However, it would be best if your fair use rationales could explicitly say why these two images are contextually significant, rather than simply saying "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): The first season cast of Temperatures Rising" and forcing readers to make the connection (i.e. that there was a drastic shift in the cast appearance and composition between seasons, and that this is most easily illustrated visually) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have revised the fair use descriptions. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Images are fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- have I missed a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All the newspaper articles that I used I copied onto Word files. I would be more than happy to send them to you. Jimknut (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What I was talking about was a check of formatting and reliability or sources but I think SchroCat may have done that after all. OTOH, I'm gathering this will be your first FA if successful, in which case I would like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (request can be made at the top of WT:FAC. Also I noticed several duplicate links in the article that you could review/rationalise using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The formatting and reliability of my sources was addressed last year during my second attempt at FA status. Likewise, I believe the accuracy and close paraphrasing was addressed as well.  I had several friends who are published authors (among them Frank Thompson) look over the text and they give it a "thumbs up".  Regarding duplicate links:  I used the system you recommended and, yes, there are some.  However, none appear near the other (i.e. they are not within a sentence or two of each other but rather are separated by several paragraphs) so I strongly believe that the use of the duplicate links are fine. Jimknut (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with peer reviewing outside WP but we would need someone to do such a spotcheck within the FAC nom, and I'm happy to place a request for such at the top of WT:FAC. Re. duplinks, it's not something on which I come down hard, I mainly like to ensure the editor is conscious of it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * About the WT:FAC: Yes, feel free to place a request. Jimknut (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give the article a spotcheck, . If you have copies of the newspaper articles for the footnotes, can you send me the ones for the footnotes which are multiples of 5? (In other words, the Hardester article used in footnote 5, the Page article in fn 10, the Thompson article in fn 15, etc.) You can e-mail me through the link on my user page, and I'll reply to receive the copies.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Imzadi1979
Stumbling here from my own nomination:
 * Constructions like "fictional Washington, D.C. hospital" need a comma after the district name to balance the one between city and district, or "fictional Washington, D.C., hospital".
 * Fixed.
 * "led to him being cast in" is an awkward and clumsy construction of the "noun plus -ing" sort. I'd suggest recasting that as "led to his casting in" to avoid it. There are be some additional opportunities to fix other similar issues in the prose.
 * Reworded per your suggestion. (This article did go through a peer review and rewrite.)
 * "Little's casting reflected: 'pressure...'" the colon there isn't needed since the sentence flows right into the quotation.
 * Fixed. (Actually I did not have the colon in there to begin with. Someone doing a peer review and rewrite added it in.)
 * There's a bit of inconsistency in subsequent references to people in the article, In most cases, after the first mention, the first name is dropped and all subsequent mentions do with just surnames, but once in a while the first names re-appear. Obviously you shouldn't alter direct quotes, but our prose should be a bit more polished in its presentation in this respect.
 * I'm holding out on this. I used full names when a person is first mentioned and refer to them by the last name only in subsequent sentences. I return to using their full names only in later paragraphs - often in different sections of the article.  I don't think there is any wrong wth this but if you (or anyone else) strongly objects to it I'll change it.
 * Also, we should be consistent where dealing with the distinction between actors and roles. By this, we have :"Subsequent episodes feature Noland performing a secret operation on a young baseball player while Campanelli deals with a hospital inspector, Ed Platt,[19] and John Astin as a gangster wanting Noland to be his personal physician.[20] In another episode, Noland hypnotizes a patient (Alice Ghostley) and, accidentally, Nurse Turner as well. This nearly costs the hospital a large donation from a potential benefactor (Charles Lane)." The first sentence puts the actor's name in commas after the reference to the character, but the last sentence has the actors' names in parentheses. Neither is wrong, but the inconsistency is a bit weird to me.
 * Fixed for more consistency. (This is another case where a peer reviewer made the change.)
 * Footnotes 17, 30 and 44 have access dates defined in the citation templates, but no URLs, a situation which prompts an error message (at least to those of us who have all of the error messages displayed).
 * URLs are now removed. (These articles used to be available online but have since been removed.)
 * There's a bit of a formatting inconsistency between the footnotes and the bibliography. In the former, state names are spelled out in full for locations, while in the latter they're abbreviated. Consistency is a key for promotion to FA status, so this should be fixed.
 * States are now spelled out fully in the bibliography.
 * Now, in my experience, it's not necessary to list a city of publication for a newspaper unless the newspaper's name lacks the name of a city. So the Los Angeles Times doesn't need it, but The Sun (Lowell, MA) does. In any case, it doesn't hurt to include them where not needed, but they don't need to be wikilinked, especially if the newspaper name itself is/can be wikilinked as a more specific target. Also, if locations are going to be included, they honestly need to be included even when the same paper is being cited again, as a matter of consistency. Why bother to include it for the Los Angeles Times in footnote 3, but then drop it in footnote 18?
 * Here's what I did: All newspapers are linked if there is a Wikipedia article for them (in the case of the Los Angeles Times it is linked only in the earliest citation). Location names are only presented when there is no Wiki article.  (I'm presuming that readers know that the location for the Los Angeles Times is Los Angeles, California, and not Los Angeles, Texas.)
 * It looks like a few newspaper citations are not using cite news, so the location isn't being displayed in parentheses. Also, in at least one case (footnote 13), the paper name is apparently put in the publisher parameter, so it's not in italics and it comes after the location.
 * See above comment. Footnote 13 is fixed.
 * One final note about the citations, but you can, and should, harmonize the capitalization style for the article titles. Some are in Title Case, and some are in Sentence case. Harmonizing this would make everything look more polished.
 * Capitalization is now harmonized. (Actually, I was presenting the headlines as they actually appeared in the newspapers.)
 * Now, having said all of that, I think the article is a great read. It's a matter of polishing some details before promotion, that's all.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope this brings the article closer to FA! Jimknut (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Imzadi1979
Ok, as noted above, I'm auditing the footnotes divisible by 5, so approximately 20% of the sources. I have tagged any footnotes that failed verification in the article.
 * The source in n. 5 does not support the cited sentence. The article does not mention any connection between Temperatures Rising and This is a Hospital? at all, and it only mentions that a certain actress had appeared in the pilot for This is a Hospital?.
 * n. 5 has been moved to the next sentence. Since it presents an article from 1965 it is obviously not going to discuss a TV series made seven years later.  However, n. 6 does state that Temperatures Rising derives from This is a Hospital?  However it states that the unsold pilot was from the "mid-1960s";  n. 5 is therefore used to pinpoint a more accurate date.
 * n. 10: the first passage is verified, but you lifted the phrase "always covering up for the inept crew" from the source without putting it in quotation marks in the article. The second direct quote from the article is also verified.
 * n. 15: the brand name of the toothpaste for the commercial does not appear in the source.
 * Changed to state only "a toothpaste commercial".
 * n. 20:, verified.
 * n. 25: Albertson is not mentioned in the snippet, so that fails verification as well.
 * A second source is now added to verify that Albertson is in the episode.
 * n. 30: verified, and properly quoted for attribution purposes.
 * n. 35: verified.
 * n. 40: verified. I didn't receive a copy of n. 41, but the content of nb2 can be verified to n. 40 alone.
 * n. 45: verified.
 * n. 50: verified.
 * n. 55: verified.
 * nn. 60–61: basically verified. n. 60 doesn't explicitly say that it was the last episode, but the replacement the following week in n. 61 does imply that.
 * n. 65: verified.

The items marked as failing verification need to be rectified. I added the missing quotation marks myself. Given that over a quarter of the sources checked revealed issues. I'm going to ask for additional sources to see if they weren't aberrations, or to see if they're part of a pattern here. , please supply copies of the sources for the footnotes that end in 3 or 7 so that I can do further verifications.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes made. Next batch of sources in the works. Jimknut (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Next batch sent. Jimknut (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

On the latest batch to be checked:
 * n. 3: verified in all usages.
 * n.7: verified.
 * n. 13: verified
 * n. 17: verified. (as a note, this would verify the brand of toothpaste that n. 15 couldn't.)
 * n. 23: verified.
 * n. 27: verified (and isn't the expression "card shark" and not "card sharp"?)
 * n. 33: verified.
 * n. 37: verified.
 * n. 43: verified
 * n. 47: I'm not sure why this appears after "As to why the series was not cancelled, Asher remarked, 'I can answer that in two words: Paul Lynde.'" because that quotation only appears in n. 3 and not n. 47. Otherwise, this one is verified.
 * n. 53: verified.
 * n. 57: verified.
 * n. 63: verified.
 * n. 67: verified.

Overall, this is much better than the last batch and counters my fear that there was sourcing issues in the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Concerning your comment for n. 27: "Card shark" and "card sharp" are interchangeable; however, Wikipedia has an article under card sharp and it is also what appears in Webster's online dictionary (as one word: cardsharp) described as "someone who makes money by cheating at card games".  Hence I will stick with my spelling. Jimknut (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.