Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010.

Glee (season 1)

 * Nominator(s): CycloneGU (talk), Frickative (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am co-nominating this for featured list with Frickative because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, has undergone a recent peer review, and was written based on other featured lists such as Lost (season 1) and 30 Rock (season 1). We've worked hard on this and hope it qualifies to be among the best. We will both be watching this and addressing any concerns in the process. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Support (per nom). CycloneGU (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment (as co-nominator). The article has undergone thorough editing over the past week to ensure it is up to the necessary standard, and I believe that it is of comparable quality to other featured lists on television seasons. Frickative 03:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment–no dab links, no dead external links. By the way, it's not customary for nominators to support: the FL directors are looking for uninvolved support. Ucucha 06:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've crossed mine. I've seen others do it before, so I thought it was customary.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - "The season consisted of 22 episodes, with the first 13 episodes airing on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET) and the final 12 airing on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." 13 plus 12 does not equal to 22. -- K. Annoyomous   (talk)   07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops...I will check that. CycloneGU (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I think the second half was supposed to originally have 12, but that never got checked.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Note My previous comments can be found at the talk page of this nomination Matthewedwards : Chat  18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to nom this for FL. While everything Matthew says is true, this is an area where we don't always follow summary style.  They jumped the gun a little bit, but Glee has been renewed for a third season already, and the second is only a month away.  This is what this article should look like in few months, and a lot of effort has gone into this FL review, so I think you should just review what's here without regard to the other articles.  As soon as the second season premiere airs next month, the two parent articles will begin to diverge significantly, or at least they should.  I think there's a lot of Glee episode GAs too, but I wouldn't overthink it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I didn't go and AFD it. When the second season airs and if it gets as much coverage as the first, it's likely that season pages will be valid as the series page gives a summary overview of both seasons and everything else. I think you're wrong though, that "this is what the article should look like in a few months". There is so much valuable detail in that series page that is missing here, and when the series page is developed and expanded over the course of the second season, it will likely disappear. Matthewedwards : Chat  15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually compared to the articles, and was just speaking in general. If you're talking about FA vs FL season pages, I prefer the FA versions.  I think it's kinda silly you can't have a fat production section and then nom for either FA or FL, but whatev. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Outstanding issue: Perhaps you could rename the DVD and Blu-Ray release section to "Home media releases" which would allow you to introduce the fact that the season was available at iTunes, V-Cast on the Verizon Wireless network, Sprint PCS, Zune for the X-Box, Hulu, etc.

You've done some real good work on this page during this nomination. Most of my concerns are met now. I believe the page has got the right amount of information now, and it no longer serves as a summary of Glee (TV series) (which now correctly serves as an overview of the entire series).

The only thing now is to think about whether this still qualifies as FL over FA. Previously it did. There was the episode list, a cast list, a crew list, a list of DVD info, a list of awards and nominations. The only thing that really wasn't a list was the reception part. Now though, it seems to me to be more of an article with a list. There's a lot more prose and detail in the production section. There's more info in the character section, so it is now less of a cast list in prose form. The award section is still listy, but they usually are. I don't mean to say that it shouldn't be listed at FLC any more, just that it could be listed at FAC and its something to consider. Matthewedwards : Chat  18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends whether you regard FAC higher than FLC, or whether you think our readers do, and if you want to have the chance of it appearing on the main page. Matthewedwards : Chat  18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would disagree Matt, primarily on the basis of how the info is presented. The "cast" section is really just a list of who appeared on the show, and not really a prose of casting information about selecting actors, how those actors characterized their roles, etc. When you look at WP:MOSTV, the article would get caught up in a debate on comprehensiveness. The production section is largely a broadcast history and less a production history. It does do well with the info on musical information, but there is other stuff going on with the show (storylines, character development), which are largely absent. Some of the music in "Production" also seems more relevant to the "Music" section under "Reception". Because it talks about the release of 5 CDs, which has nothing to do with the production of a show. Given that this show is about singing and dancing, and the production section doesn't cover the latter, it wouldn't meet the FAC criteria. I think if the production section was more developed and spent more time talking about actual production of episodes and not broadcast history and the release of records, it probably would be a good candidate for FA (over FL) because the rest of the page is great. It's just, when I read the "Production" section....if I removed the info that isn't really production, that section would probably only have the 3rd and 4th paragraphs left, with everything else needing to be either placed somewhere else, or dropped entirely (i.e. the first paragraph is redundant to the episode table because you're just listing people who wrote and directed episode...which the table does already...there's no context as to why that was important enough to be separated on its own).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, both of you :) Matthew, I'm really glad you feel that most of your concerns have been addressed, and I'll try and fix up the home media section asap. Re: FL vs. FA - I've given the current season FAs a careful read through, and my gut feeling is similar to Bignole's comments. I think this article would fall down on broadness of coverage because of the "Production" section. The existing FAs have very detailed sections on "Writing", "Filming" (and "Effects" in the case of the Smallville/Supernatural articles), and while there are multiple good sources available on the "Music" element of Glee, I believe the former two sections are sparse on coverage at the present time. My instinct is to continue with the article at FLC at present, and if, in the future, there is information available with which the "Production" section can be expanded, perhaps try for FA at a later date. Frickative  22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to have a slight difference in opinion here. I agree that the Production section is our biggest obstacle here.  The thing is we don't have good sources regarding the filming of Glee; even a search for "filming in Glee season 1" brings up "They started filming Season 2!" and other similar results (I also tried "conception of glee"), and nothing about production of the show itself.  I did find a fantastic picture of Britney Spears playing Maude on the show, however (too bad it's a blog).  The writers, I think, tend to talk more about the music and discussions of future plots and twists, but there is no detail on a lot of the normal production information you'd expect in these articles.  My point is that just because we don't have any real information on things that normally would be in a television season article shouldn't detract from whether the article is well-written.  If the information isn't available, we can't say it, and a section will appear bland in comparison.  We've still provided all of the information we DO have, even if it is music; once again, music is a heavy element of the show's production more than anything else.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But you have to show that the information isn't available. Given that a simple Google search cannot prove a negative, you'd need someone with a LexisNexis account to be able to search a much broader searching field. Plus, I still think the lack of info on choregraphy and other dance elements is a big deficiency. The show is about character development, singing, and dancing. You got the music covered, but nothing else. Now, the individual episode pages seem to have more true production info, but you cannot duplicate what's there to this page because it would mean that those pages are unnecessary. That's the Catch-22. You can fill this page out more by putting more info on individual episodes here, but then that would negate the need for those individual episode pages because they would otherwise create the same problem that Matt brought up originally---multiple pages saying the exact same thing. The difference between this page and other FL seasons with the few FA season pages we have is that those "article" pages don't typically have more than a couple episode articles. The rest of the episode info is on those season pages. You'd have a hard time meeting criteria for comrehensiveness when you have 22 episodes to cover on this page and you don't really cover any.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Point noted. But we can't simply move the information to the Season 1 article from the episode articles because then we'd be having a detrimental effect on the episode articles.  We probably could add some information on special locations for filming (such as in April when they filmed the finale to an audience of Gleeks from Twitter and Facebook), but there isn't a lot we can put in without simply copying the other articles.  How much coverage would be needed to make it comprehensive?  CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Compare the page to Smallville, Supernatural, and Parks and Recreation (which are the only 3 series I know of that have "articles" for season pages). My fear is that, it sets a principle that "comprehensive" doesn't actually mean comprehensive in the future. If the info is on the episode pages, that's perfectly fine. This page does not need to be FA, it can be FL (though some things probably need to be eliminated because of redundancy in this article alone, let alone across multiple articles). When you look at this production section, it's largely non-existent. Only two paragraphs really talk about any production related information, and they aren't really lengthy paragraphs at that. It's just missing a lot for coverage. There isn't truly a lot of info on the music for a 22 episode series, nothing on any dance routines, and for a show that deals a lot with human drama there's really nothing as far as that goes either.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am replying late to this. I do agree that this page lacks information on dance routines, production, and so on.  You refer to this as the Catch-22, and I fully agree; we can put that information here, but it then could make one or more episode pages unnecessary.  Perhaps we can cover information on some of the more memorable routines, for example, and maximum of one per episode, but it would clutter the page unnecessarily to have 22 dance routine discussions on the article, so that is out.  Maybe two or three of the more memorable ones could be used, and this would tie into production, but the question is which ones we can cover best in the article to give the detail that would meet the criteria.


 * On another note, I have seen two opinions from other editors off of this page supporting this article as a potential FAC, not just an FLC. Dabomb87 and DocKino‎ have both made such comments (the former comparing it to the first time I took it to FAC without a peer review), and while I don't intend to copy their comments to this FLC or start long discussions on their talk pages, it does show one of the great things about a community such as Wikipedia in having a great group of diverse people with diverse opinions, and we all have the same goal of making this such a great wealth of information for free for everyone.  CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think just a couple of routines wouldn't be enough, because a couple of routines can be covered in a couple of sentences and the section is lacking by more than just a couple of sentences. Personally, I think given what appears to be a huge critical response for each episode (the reception sections are rather fleshed out compared to most episode articles) I wouldn't try and trim any episodes. You have three options when it comes to the production info. You can either remove it from certain/most episode pages and place it here, which would flesh out this page closer to comprehensiveness; or you can copy and paste leaving it on both. If it's on both, then it makes it redundant on one of the pages and this page would most likely be deemed the unnecessary one given the strong critical reception each episode gets. As such, the third option is to not change anything and leave this page as a list. I'm not sure why there is a push to force this page to be an article when it doesn't seem to naturally flow in that category. There is nothing wrong with it being a list (which is actually the most common form for season pages, especially when episodes are so well discussed in the media). I think, unless there is significant coverage on production info for the season that isn't directed at specific episodes (e.g., see Smallville (season 9) or Smallville (season 10) to see how info can be established on a more general scale in significant depth), then I wouldn't try and create bigger problems with multiple pages by trying to pick and choose what to snatch from episode pages and then either be left with diminished episode pages or redundant material (which was an issue this page had at the start of this FLC). I think it fits the "list" category better right now (though it certainly has a strong reception section than any season list or article), which is what I support for this page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying anything is wrong with being an FL over an FA. I'm just saying that the article is on a fence.  My requests of the editors in question were to simply give a straight opinion without review on which category it better fits, and I linked to them for that reason only to include them since another comment appears below this string here.  My main thing to take away is that if some people think it fits FA, then it likely fits FL as well in their opinion.


 * As for why I'm coming up with ideas to get more production info in, it's only for completeness purposes. If you think having more info on musical numbers would fit the article/list well, then we should try to include it.  With or without it, if it doesn't still qualify for FA, then we still have a very good FL candidate here and I think we'll both be proud of that, pass or fail (and for me, my first that I've helped spruce up, even if only as a minor contributor). =)  We've been debating running the page for FA again, but we'll let this run its course first and determine the best action after that, pass or fail. CycloneGU (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was asked to look over this to weigh in on if it's better fitting as a list or an article. Doing a read-through, I can say this: This is essentially a slightly more prose-driven season list than others. That being said, everything structurally and comprehensively is equivalent to that of a season Featured List. Just with more prose than usual. So, I'd say this is definitely better suited for FL and not FAC.  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 03:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * support Sorry. Been away for a few days and didn't get chance to follow up. As I've said before, I haven't reviewed the episode summaries at all because I don't want to be spoiled for when the DVDs come out next month, but with regard to everything else, I support this becoming a FL. I feel it meets the criteria and all other WP policies and relevant guidelines. Nice work on getting Summary Style and article hierarchy sorted out. Matthewedwards : Chat  02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I don't know if this was mentioned, but could the production be moved under the episode list? I doubt it would make or break the FA status, just wondering. Chaos Master Chat 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support If and only if the non-free content stays out. If you reinsert it, please contact me to examine the FUR you write for it. Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. The only reason "Production" leads at the moment is because having "Episodes" first would have left a large whitespace when there was an ibox image. Now the image is out, there's no reason not to shuffle the sections, so I'll change it now. Frickative  23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - In case it wasn't clear in the long winded reply above. I also support the page with the DVD cover art, because that is the standard practice of ALL season pages (whether articles or lists) right now and if someone has an issue with this page then they need to bring it up at WP:TV to change it across the board and not simply trying to change a single page. (i.e. I'd put the image back in)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.