Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Sopranos episodes/archive1

List of The Sopranos episodes
After weeks of review and improvement, I think that this list is worthy of featured status. In accordance with the criteria, it is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. Self-nom by Cliff smith 19:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I believe it meets the criteria and is very neat and informative. I have also contributed to the article in the past. Sfufan2005 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the article meets the FL criteria and has steadily improved over the last month. Please note that I have contributed to this article.--Opark 77 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Also a contributor. Qjuad 22:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak support Some suggestion for improvement:
 * A different references format for the episode list source, see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes.
 * Section introductions or graphs.
 * Maybe a spoiler-free version of the list.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A spoiler-free version of the list can be created in the near future. That sounds like a good idea. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Agree, the references/notes/external links aren't right. Put the full citation from your "references" into the linked "notes". Then move the "external links" you actually used as general references into the "references" section. Then ditch the external links. Colin°Talk 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object I'm going to have to make my normal "one sentence paragraphs" objection. I still feel that episode summaries should be a full paragraph. Jay32183 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Conditional Support Based on the good faith effort I've seen in improving the episodes and noting that it is almost complete, I support if the remaining episodes are brought up to the standard as those that have been updated. Unaired episodes can remain in the state they are in, until a reasonable amount of time after the initial broadcast. Jay32183 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. However, two other featured episode lists--South Park and Stargate SG-1--only have one/two-sentence episode summaries. There is no guideline on the length of an episode summary in a list, however one paragraph is a little excessive since each episode has its own article. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually feel both of those lists are insufficient and that a single paragraph is not too much as an individual episode article should have at least three paragraphs of synopsis, rather than one of summary. It doesn't matter how well formatted the list is if it's text is poorly written. Jay32183 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any evidence of the list being poorly written. The synopsis are concise and to the point. Qjuad 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Single sentence paragraphs don't represent the best work of Wikipedia. I will continue to object until this is fixed. Jay32183 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, Jay--I understand your opinion, but your objection is rather inactionable because 1) There is no guideline on the length of an episode summary in a list (as previously stated); and 2) Your objection doesn't pertain to any specific aspect of WP:WIAFL, which is what is truly important here.
 * —Cliff smith 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem. The definition of Featured List includes the phrase "represents Wikipedia's best work". This list does not, and there are two actions you could take to satisfy my object, therefore making it actionable. Expand the summaries to full paragraphs or remove the summaries completely. Neither of these actions are unreasonable as neither requires and overabundance of work or resources and both improve the overall quality of the project. If you do not take either of these actions my objection will not be dropped. I have not presented a request that is unreasonable, so my objection probably won't be ignored either. Jay32183 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This vote is for deciding whether this list meats the critera as laid out in the WP:WIAFL and as such "represents Wikipedia's best work" in its capacity as a list. As Cliff Smith stated, no where in those guide lines does it state a rule on the length of an episode summary. Your objection appears to be based more on personal preference than the guidelines. Qjuad 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. I have presented an actionable case as to why this does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Any prose that is included must be up to the standards of prose for the encyclopedia. It's not a simple checklist, those are the general guidelines. Arguing with me will not change anything. Either follow one of the two actions I suggested or my objection will never be retracted. I've participated in enough FAR's and FARC's to know that arguing against a concern with a recommened, reasonable action never generates featured status. By the way, I'm not actually talking about the length of the summary but the quality of the writing. One sentence paragraphs are not good writing, they may not be bad, but any writing included needs to be the best. Jay32183 04:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an idea for compromise. It is this--
 * The making of a spoiler-free LOE for The Sopranos; and
 * Expanding the episode summaries on this list.
 * Jay, your assistance would be very appreciated in the undertaking of the latter, since I think you know a great deal about matters of this nature. Also, as with the LOEs for Stargate SG-1, the spoiler-free version would be the exact same thing, minus episode summaries. Should this current FLC nomination fail, the new list could be nominated; and hopefully this one will reach the same status after its proposed expansion. What do you think? —Cliff smith 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can get behind that. I'll try to help anyway I can, but should inform you I haven't watched "The Sopranos" so I can copy edit, but I won't be able to comfortably write any new material for you. If you don't want any plot in the spoiler-free version that shouldn't be a difficult task, and I'll definitely help there if you like. Jay32183 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool! Your help is valuable. Also, I made the spoiler-free LOE. —Cliff smith 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job. I've gone ahead and wikilinked all the dates on the main page, I just noticed they weren't. Can't forget to respect users' date preferences. Jay32183 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Season one looks good, keep at it and you'll have my support. Jay32183 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reset indents. Jay, I actually went through and removed all the date links as part of the peer review. This was a suggestion of the automated peer review and I actioned it as I felt they add little context to the article. I don't quite follow you when you say "Can't forget to respect users' date preferences." Could you explain this a bit more?--Opark 77 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The automated peer review isn't worded clearly to reflect the policy. Whenever you have a complete date as in Month Day, Year or just Month Day, you are supposed to link it because of users date preferences. For instance, my birthdate can be March 21 1983 or 21 March 1983 or 1983-03-21. If you set your date preferences you saw all three of those as the same. When you have Month Year or just Month or just Year, you don't link unless it provides context. If Spring 2007 had been linked that would have triggered the automated peer review as it should not be linked. Jay32183 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jay that clarifies it. Good work on the spoiler free article guys, that looks great for something that has come up so fast.--Opark 77 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per use of fair use images on lists. Renata 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Fair Use - Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. —Cliff smith 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a touchy issue right now. Some people complain that too many images are being used. Others complain that the contribution isn't significant enough. Some see no problem at all. It seems to be a discussion that won't resolve anytime soon. I can't predict how Renata's objection will be handled if it is the only objection left when this closes. I can say that images are optional, so it's really up to how willing you are to argue. I won't object to either an images list or a no images list, but that may just be me. Jay32183 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (To Renata's positon) Here's the thing about LOEs: They can either have images or not have images. Whether or not images are a part of the list doesn't really affect the quality of the list. However, images that are subject appropriate are part of the criteria for a featured list. Then again, the image of the title screen and the images of the DVD art would satisfy the criteria. So at this point, I am indifferent as to whether or not there are screenshot images on this LOE. If it is of greater than little importance, the future of the screenshots can be voted upon at the talk page for this list. But note that if they end up being taken down, this opposition should be retracted (I only say this because I've seen instances when something is changed that would make a position inactionable, but the position wasn't retracted). —Cliff smith 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Good quality/informative list. Matthew Fenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)