Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Revenge (Seinfeld)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 18:59, 27 October 2009 [1].

The Revenge (Seinfeld)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

You know what? I'm just going to be very bold and nominate this article. It hasn't been through GAn or PR, it hasn't even been copy-edited (though I have contacted a member of the COCE). Some reviewers might consider this an insult, but I don't really care; you can oppose if you feel the article doesn't meet the criteria. Also, if someone comes across a review of the episode so the reception section can be expanded a little, it would be great.--Music26/11 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<discussion removed to talk page>

Source comments: What makes this reliable?

Otherwise, dabs, sources, and links all fine. RB88 (T) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you already have one nomination up, from the 19th, and it's not garnered much support. Better to hold off on this one until your other nomination has more support. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm removing this nomination for now; please reinstate it when the older one has been archived. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other nomination has been archived.--Music26/11 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comments: Some issues spotted skimming the article, but over all great shape. Here's some things I've caught:
    • Just my opinion, but the Seinfeld, master of its domain: revisiting television's greatest sitcom should be a "Reference" section while the current reference section should become notes. You use the book a few times as a reference, so all usage of it as a ref should be "Lavery & Dunne, p. ???" Just my opinion, though.
  • Thought about it, the thing is, I only cite the book twice, and I only use one book as a reference, so the "references" section would be too small.--Music26/11 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Capodice (in the summary) is a red link - cut it, please.
    • Nielsen rating info is too small to be a separate paragraph. Merge with the other para. in "Reception"?
  • I've learned at other FACs and GANs that it's better to have the info seperated. Though I do agree that two sentences is very short for paragraph. If you really refuse to support if I don't change it, I'll change it, otherwise I'd rather leave it this way.--Music26/11 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I can see. Get those fixed and I think I'm ready to support. The Flash {talk} 16:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your time, I hope your current (and, I believe, first) FAC gets promoted.--Music26/11 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No prob. Yeah, it's actually my second FAC, but the first was a dismal failure (nominated it way to prematurely, lol :P) Thank - I've changed my vote to a support. The Flash {talk} 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any posibility that there is more reception, or is that of reliable sources we can find?.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the article's main issue. I Hunter Kahn a while back, but I haven't heard anything from him, I'll see if another user with a LexisNexis account can help out.--Music26/11 10:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great as that is the only issue i see in this artical for FA.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To start with I should say that I won't be able to support this article for FA since (1) it is not largely based on sources independent of the subject, (2) because of the relative triviality of the subject, we don't have enough sourced information on the topic that a truly comprehensive article would require, for example when and where has this episode been re-telecast, what languages has it been dubbed in (if any) etc. Because of these two reasons, I don't think it represents the best content of wikipedia, despite the best efforts of the editors involved. That said, I would like to see the article as well-sourced and written as possible, and here are some actionable items to improve it:
  • What, I'm sorry but the issues you point out here are simply rediculous. I speak for myself here, do I don't think I stand alone in my opinion, when I say that I've never read a television episode FA that had any information regarding re-telecasting, broadcasting outside of the UK, Australia or America. I believe the article has plenty of independent sources, and I have contacted a user with LexisNexis to help me find sources to expand the reception section.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The re-telecast etc were just hypothetical examples, but you can compare the article to (say) Through the Looking Glass (Lost) to see what kind of information would be useful to add.
      • I get that, but this is a tv episode that was broadcast in 1991, and ratings info is very hard to find, especially for episodes broadcast prior to 2004.--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for sources, most of the article is sourced to various SONY produced DVD commentaries, which are not independent of the subject. The sources (mainly newspaper reviews) that are independent, each cover the subject in 1-4 sentences each, and contribute to a very small part of the article. It would be good to complete the Nexis survey before this FAC closes; I have access to it so if there is any particular newpaper article you want, ping me on my talk page and I can try to look it up. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contacted TheLeftorium, haven't received anything yet.--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information in the infobox is incomplete (all the character names for the guest stars are missing) and potentially confusing (episode 12 instead of 7, as in the lede sentence; clarify that you are referring to the series episode and not the season episode number)
    • stolen money from them: isn't the Money Jerry's alone.
    • Concrete is not a synonym for cement. Check sources to see what is intended.
      • Done.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article still uses cement, cement mix and concrete. Is it just the sources themselves that don't make this distinction ? Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • first mention of Newman, a suicidal man -> "first mention of Newman, as a suicidal man ". Since, though he is introduced as a suicidal man in this episode, him being suicidal is not a recurring trait AFAIK.
    • "considered a turning point" seems to be a hyperbolic claim. Not sure that this is actually supported by the sources.
    • "When Jerry prepares to go to the laundromat ..." Explain how this is related chronologically with the events of the first and third paragraph, both in terms of the in-universe timeline, and as dramatized in the episode.
      • I'm not sure how.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can start the plot section as: "The episodes relates two (three ?) parallel plots, in intertwining scenes". And then start the second section as, "The first plot concerns George being banned from ..." etc. And the last paragraph can be, "The concluding scenes of the episode occur at Jerry's apartment where Karamer tells ..." I haven't seen the episode recently, so my suggestion may be factually incorrect, but hopefully you get the basic idea. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • sub plot or subplot ? Check.
    • ""The Revenge" was written ... "The Revenge" was" Avoid repetition.
    • "was first read" I assume that you are using "read" as term-of-art. If so explain it, else it is likely to be misinterpreted.
    • "Filming of the episode was delayed due to President's Day." Clarify. (Would it otherwise have been scheduled for Feb 18th ? )
      • Done.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Filming of the episode was delayed" -> "Filming of the episode had been delayed", since the delay had already occured by Feb 20th ? Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indicate why the article mainly refers to George, Jerry and Elaine by their first name, and Kramer by his last name.
      • Kramer is almost never referred to by his first name, not by the crew or cast, nor by the characters. In fact, it is not even reaveled it is Cosmo until the sixth season.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I knew that, but a reader of the article is not expected to. This can be mentioned in the background section that I suggested below ("The main characters in the series are the Jerry Sienfeld ("Jerry"), a stand up-comic; his neighbor Cosmo Kramer ("Kramer"); ...) Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A number of scenes in ... and the scene was cut." Needs copyediting for grammar, and clarity.
      • I'll contact someone for ce help.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Initially, due to scheduling issues." Prose is choppy. Distinguish between real-world and in-universe timeline more explicitly. Also explain or eliminate jargon, such as "callback".
    • "he would explain to" -> "he would have explained to"
    • "the super" -> "the building superintendent"
    • "The episode also involved the second ..." Not clear whether this was or wasn't included in the final episode.
    • "inform everybody". Everybody ?
    • "George and Elaine work together" -> "George and Elaine appear in the same scene" or "Alexander and Louis-Dreyfus work together" ?
    • "Before it was announced ..." -> "Before it was decided ... " ?
    • "Tim Russ ... auditioned for the role." -> "among others Tim Russ ..." ?
      • Could be; source does not specify.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is William Thomas, Jr. identified as African American, while Tim Russ isn't ? No race is identified for any other actors either.
      • I thought it was significant, as Wayne knight, who would later portray the character is caucasian, but I'll remove it.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "small dialogue" -> "short dialog"
    • "did not intend to have the return" Missing word.
    • The prose in the paragraph describing the Newman character is pretty choppy at present and needs to be improved. (Currently it reads like a bulleted list turned into prose; which perhaps is the case :-) )
      • I don't get what you want me to do, I'll contact a copy-editor, hopefully he/she will resolve this issue.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, a copyeditor should be able to help with this. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Teri Austin portrayed Ava, a co-worker of George, she " Semi-colon before '"she".
    • "she had appeared earlier ... but aired as part of season three." Check tenses. Since the episode was telecast later, she had not appeared earlier.
    • "Patrika Darbo, who played Glenda, " Who is Glenda ? Also did the actress or the character repeat in the later episode ?
    • "that 14.4% of American households watched" Clarify that this is an estimate, not a hard fact.
    • Don't wikilink graded (see where it redirects :-) ) Check for other cases of overlinking (cement, awning etc)
      • I wikilinked this to indicate on what scale a C is given (good? bad?).--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see what you mean. Would it be better to say "given a C grade on a scale of A to D" (or whatever). I would assume that its common knowledge that A>B>C.
    • "IGN critic Andy Patrizio considered "The Revenge" one of season two's best episodes." Not explicitly supported by source. Rephrase.
    • "considers the scene one" -> "considers the scene to be one" (Check the article for such missing verbs, which are ok in informal writing but not ideal in an encyclopedia).
    • Comprehensiveness issues The article needs more background information about the Seinfeld series and its main characters, in order to serve as a stand-alone article. For example, a reader unfamiliar with American television wouldn't realize from reading this article that the series was a comedy (!), how long each episode was, etc.
      • I disagree, it's as simple as that. I don't think you and me can make an agreement regarding the article's current status. Therefore I propose you not supporting nor opposing, but just letting me know if I fixed your concerns.--Music26/11 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, we can wait for other reviewers to chime in. Thanks for addressing most of the points I raised earlier. I have added a few follow-up comments above. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while I cannot support this article for an FA, I must commend the editors for the work they have done with the meager sources available. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recomend you ask user Fuhghettaboutit for copy editing.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he may be occupied editing family guy but he is one of the best copyeditors i now and he would do a great work on the page so i recomened you wait till tomorow, if you need a copy editor now i can suggest one to you but he is one of the best.,.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the high praise Pedro. I started on a copyedit upon request, and made a number of tweaks but, unfortunately, this requires expansion and something of a rewrite by someone with access to the sources, not a copyedit. There are well done parts, don't get me wrong, but it's highly uneven and I doubt sources have been exhausted such that a more comprehensive treatment is not possible. There are also many passages that lack clarity and completeness and feel as if they were plucked from somewhere else and we're missing the end of the sentence or the next sentence which would clarify what is meant. There's also some facts which are just plain wrong, and since I wasn't doing a fact check but just stumbled across them, this doesn't give me great confidence in the accuracy of the whole. Some examples of problems:
  • "Initially, during Jerry and George's conversation about jobs, George mentions Regis Philbin, when they discuss George being a talkshow host". Putting aside the structure of this sentence, I am baffled as to how this fits where it is placed, which is amidst a discussion of cut scenes. Should the end of this sentence be "but that part of the scene was cut"?
    • This is a problem I have with most Seinfeld articles. The thing is: the DVD extras point out both cut/deleted scenes and scenes in the script that were changed prior to broadcast. In this case, the first paragraph mostly mentions the influence of the episode, so I don't think the changed scene info could fit there.--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newman does share a brief dialogue with Kramer at the end of the episode, David recorded the lines, though he was not credited." What does this mean? The sentence is structured so that the pronoun refers to David but is it William Thomas, Jr. who "he" refers to? (which makes more sense). The whole discussion of the cut Newman scene is a fractured puzzle.
    • No, with the removal of the Newman subplot William Thomas, Jr. "dissapeared". "He" refers to David.--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Wayne Knight is first discussed, we get "...they re-cast Knight in the role of Newman for..." but this is the first mention of Knight. The whole sentence and its use of "re-cast" implies a prior introduction to the reader of Knight and his casting but that's missing.
    • Knight is first mentioned in the sentence prior to the one you point out. "...but because the idea of having actor Wayne Knight as a neighbour appealed to them...". I've added the word actor before Wayne Knight as you can see. Perhaps changing the word re-cast simply to cast would help as well?--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...though Seinfeld would continue proofreading David's scripts until the eighth season." There's an information gap here. The sentence can be read as implying a number of things but provides clarity on none. Prior to this were they David's scripts and only proofread by Seinfeld? Or prior to this they collaboarted on the writing, as of this episode, no input from Seinfeld, and thereafter, no longer a collaboration but Seinfeld would proofread? The reader is left scratching their head.
  • Having viewed just a few minutes of the episode on youtube, I can tell you that Kramer does not make plans to go to the movies with Newman, as is positively stated in the plot section. Rather, Kramer asks Newman if he wants to go go shoot some pool with him and Newman declines, stating that he has plans to go to the movies (thus implying that he never intended to jump off the building). More trivially, $1,500 should not be described as "just enough" to cover a $1,200 repair.
    • Changed the movie thing, do you know how I can work the $1,200 thing into the plot?--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: there are far too many uses of the word "felt".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word was only in the article three times, and I've decreased it to one.--Music26/11 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback?

I would like some more specific comments on what I am supposed to do to get you to support. I've conducted a search on NewsBank for sources to further expand the reception section, but I really couldn't find anything. Sorry. So far, I've fixed all your issues, what now?--Music26/11 16:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the only thing i had was the reception but if there is no mmore then i guess it is fine, also fel free to coment on my FLC Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy cast members/archive1 .--Pedro J. the rookie 19:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 1a I only read the lead and the plot summary, but in those two sections alone I found numerous problems with the prose. This article needs some more copyediting. Here are some examples of the problems I found:

  • The story revolves around George Costanza's (Jason Alexander) plot to exact revenge on his boss, with his friend Elaine Benes' (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) help, after he quits his job and is refused re-employment - Awkward structure
  • The episode also contained the first mention of Newman, as a suicidal man who lives in Jerry and Kramer's apartment building, who would later become a popular recurring character. - Unclear - do you want to suggest that this is the "first mention of Newman, a suicidal man..." or "the first mention of Newman, who in this episode is a suicidal man...."
  • Some cast and crew members consider the episode a turning point for the show, as it is the first in which Kramer does physical comedy. - Very awkward - "does physical comedy" - perhaps a phrase including the word "slapstick" would be better?
  • The episodes relates three parallel plots, in intertwining scenes. - Awkward - perhaps "The episode has three parallel, interwined plots."
  • As revenge, George decides to slip a mickey into his drink during an office party, and enlists Elaine Benes to help him. - Awkward - "as revenge" doesn't make sense
  • As revenge, George decides to slip a mickey into his drink during an office party, and enlists Elaine Benes to help him. At the party, Elaine distracts Levitan while George puts the mickey in his drink. - Wordy - these sentences can be combined
  • In the following scene we see George once again brainstorming job opportunity ideas, the subtext being that his boss discovered the spiking of his drink, connected it to George, and has fired him once again. - Poor construction - "the subtext being"
  • The second plot of the episode revolves around Jerry; when he prepares to go to the laundromat, Kramer asks if he could take his laundry with him. - Wordy
  • Kramer and Jerry both assume Vic stole the money and Kramer comes up with a plan to put cement mix in one of Vic's washing machines as revenge. - Awkward - "as revenge"
  • At the end of the episode, Newman threatens to jump again, Kramer asks Newman if he wants to go go shoot some pool with him, but Newman declines, stating that he has plans to go to the movies. - doubled word

I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Revenge_(Seinfeld)/archive1&oldid=1138473455"