User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I created

Thanks. I appreciate you setting it up.

Shouldn't I be able to edit the page directly by now? I've just finished writing up my list of changes in an external file (copy and paste is my friend), and it's now been four days since my first BlueMoonset edit (admittedly, four days and twenty minutes only; the bot that checks this probably doesn't run all that frequently). I have 15 article edits under my belt, which should make me auto-confirmed, but the lock still appears on the Season 2 page.

It would be simpler all around to make the edits directly to the page. (Not to worry; I have references where appropriate.) I'll check again in the morning. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It turns out I wasn't paying attention: the Edit box appeared for me on the main Season 2 page, and I've just posted my edits directly there. Thanks for the help with the separate page, but it looks like I won't be using it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)==

Ok, no problem, I had an admin delete it.

CTJF83

15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, BlueMoonset. I'm glad to see you joined the Glee project. I've noticed some of your edits on my watchlist, and I just thought I would introduce myself. I focus pretty much on the character articles, and it's nice to see someone polishing some of them up. If you ever want to team up on something or just have any questions just drop me a message on my talk page. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Horrorfan121. We almost ran over each other in Blaine Anderson this afternoon; I went to save changes to the Storylines section and it wasn't there any more (you had moved it within the article), and I almost undid the resizing of Darren's photo. There was one other, too, I think. It all came out fine, though.

Thanks for the offer. If something comes up, especially with one of the pages you've been working on, or if I don't understand a change you've made to something I've done, I'll definitely drop by. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I've been meaning to expand on it for awhile. I'm trying to construct it to

MOS the "Storyline" section should generally be the first section in the article. That's why I moved it up a little. Hope you keep up the awesome work! ;) HorrorFan121 (talk

) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether that was the immediate goal. I'd imagine Blaine's pretty close right now, though, and at the very least a B; it's also up to date, and I'm not sure what else could be added. I did notice that the Storylines section is only second in the articles for both Rachel and Kurt, though it is first in Quinn's. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about half way there. I need to add a "Characterization" and "Musical performances" sections. Most likely a "Relationship" section too because his relationship with Kurt is pretty important to his character. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hah. Thanks for going over some of my mistake's on Blaine's article. I was in a rush earlier, but felt like I should put some work into it. I think once the "Musical performances" section is expanded it should be in pretty good shape. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, while you were writing that, I was making some edits on the "Relationship" section. I hope it's okay to pull the Blaine/Kurt narrative material into an initial paragraph, and leave the comments by critics in a larger, now-second paragraph. (The Rachel material's still embedded with those comments by critics.) I did remove the bit about Karofsky material because Blaine only helps Kurt out (that we know of) in that first episode, where he takes the lead as a "neutral" party and one who's likely had some experience with helping classmates who were confused or in denial. Blaine isn't there when the Karofsky situation goes toxic in "The Substitute" and "Furt; he's just there to help guide Kurt as he learns the rhythms of Dalton and the Warblers in "Special Education" and beyond. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. It flows better now too. There's also a new free image of Darren that popped up that can be included in the article somewhere. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this edit, I think that detailing all the shows which aired in the same timeslot as Glee is excessive, unless they can be shown to have had a notable impact on the ratings, such as when "

Thanks. I'm not particularly wedded to the format and will happily eschew that part of it in future (takes less time if I don't have to look up the shows); I had just been carefully perpetuating it the past couple of months, because it seemed to be the usual template, so it was odd to see it edited out at this late date. I figured it was best to draw attention to the issue with my reinsertion (and explanation thereof). Of the 14 episodes with that boilerplate, I think only the two that weren't broadcast in the usual time slot will probably need special treatment—"The Sue Sylvester Shuffle" because it followed the Super Bowl, and "New York", because it followed the first night of the two-night American Idol finale—though something for "Born This Way" may be appropriate because it ran for 90 minutes. And maybe "A Very Glee Christmas", because it was (if I'm remembering correctly) up against Christmas specials rather than the shows it typically faced. But maybe the necessary explanations are already there. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with

You're the expert. I'm not sure why making links consistent within an article—in the body of the article, links to those same pages were of the redirect format I was changing to up top, and the bulk of the Glee articles use this format for links to the individual sections in

WP:RDR page, and was wondering if you could point me to the specific rule I violated so I understand the nuances. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk

) 14:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

For all the vandals and brick-heads that pop up on Wikipedia, it's always nice to see someone come along who gets it. In less than four months, you have proven yourself a true Wikipedian who learns it's ways and tirelessly contributes to an encyclopedia without just being a fan-page geek to your favorite show. I'm just a TV nomad myself, but it's hard not to see that "WikiProject Glee" is better off for your being part of it! KnownAlias X 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! What a pleasant surprise. I still have a lot to learn, but I'm having fun working on the Glee articles, and helping to improve them. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind giving the Music and performances section of "Comeback" a read through? I've pulled it in by about 300 words, and I'd appreciate a check for cohesion and flow by a fresh pair of eyes, before I finally make the GA nomination :) Frickative 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all; I'm happy to do so. In fact, I've just done a first pass, and made minor changes to the Fallon section in the Bieber paragraph, and slightly more significant ones to the Gonzalez section of the "I Know What Boys Like" paragraph; when I found that she said it was "lacking basic musicality" I felt it had to be included, although I didn't use "lacking" because Gonzalez, unfortunately, also uses it for "Sing"; it reads badly to use such a word twice in such close succession (and she uses it almost as closely in her article), and I thought it was more needed in the latter place.

You did a great job. I think I ought to make another pass later, to give me more distance (I'd reread the page earlier today, so it seemed quite familiar, not ideal for copyediting), but I think it's good to go now; anything I might find would be cosmetic. (Just saw another one-word change to make; figured I should do another quick read-through now in case something new jumped out.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's getting to be a habit: I start writing something on a Talk page, and before I know it I see more things to change in the thing I'm writing about. I'll stop now, really. (Just worked over the "Take Me or Leave Me" paragraph. The first and last paragraphs look fine.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The Gonzalez part of "I Know..." was bothering me a bit, given that it only addressed the cutaway gag rather than the performance itself, so the "basic musicality" addition is perfect. The other amendments are also super. I'll go ahead and nominate it now (and judging from the length of the

queue, it could be sitting there for quite a while, so if you do spot anything else that could use polishing then there should be plenty of time.) Thanks again! Frickative

16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you liked them. The word "entices" in the plot has bothered me for a while, and I finally changed the bit about "Baby" to replace it; there may be a little work still left to do there. Even with the queue so long, I'm not going to count on it taking so long; we've had a number of fairly rapid GA reviews completed on articles that were put in the queue well after the first couple of dozen that are still in that queue today. It seems to depend on the mood of the available reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like "Comeback" has already been picked up. :-) I've just worked on the Plot section of "Never Been Kissed"; I think it flows better now, and should be ready to go when it's time to go for GA certification. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I've just re-read "Never Been Kissed", and your changes are such an improvement - it definitely flows much better now. Great work :). I'm planning on working "Duets" up to GA next, then "Never Been Kissed". NBK is probably closer to being ready as it is, but as its events ended up shaping much of the remainder of the season, I think its impact needs to be addressed somewhere, and I'm still mulling over how best to do that. Frickative 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Better flow is good; glad I helped improve things. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to look at in "Duets", since it's next (I just made a couple of tiny changes there, and I'm working on the opening Plot sentence). I'll keep poking at "Never Been Kissed", too; I'm not satisfied with the opening of the Plot section there, either. It did strike me that aside from the Production section, which you've already mentioned on the NBK talk page, the most undeveloped section is the lead, which is tiny compared to the usual episode leads. Following on to what you just said, it should probably allude to how pivotal the episode was, not just in plot, with the bullying storyline and Kurt's departure to Dalton and the romance that falls out from it, but musically, since the success of "Teenage Dream" ultimately shifts some focus to Dalton and the Warblers, and the show goes more top 40 (I've seen articles that argue it was "Teenage Dream" that gave impetus to the trend toward more popular music, though it may have been part of an already underway trend). This may be going overboard for the lead; the bulk of the info belongs in the various sections (e.g., Murphy on the season's bullying storyline probably belongs in Production). It's interesting that an episode that was so pivotal and successful musically should get such polarized reactions critically... BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what comes next after "Duets" and NBK? I was taking a look at "Furt" today, and thinking about giving its Plot a needed workover, but if you were going to attack B-levels before C-levels, I could skip up to the "Special Education" Plot instead. (I've just done some minor editing in the latter's 'Production" and "Critical Reception" sections, but the Critical Reception needs a major expansion and recasting, including the music end of things, which I think needs your experienced hand.) Any preference(s)? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Found 'em: the Murphy interview—which isn't mentioned anywhere on the "Never Been Kissed" page and should be—is in a two-part article in the New York Times by Dave Itzkoff; both parts are linked to in the Karofsky entry on the

Characters of Glee page (parts of which found their way onto Max Adler's page, which is where I found it today while making some edits); one was printed the day the show aired as a preview, and one the day after, with spoilers. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you've made significant headway with the s2 storyline revisions now, very nice job! NBK's lead is indeed in need of some TLC - I usually work on lead sections last, just because it's easier to summarise an article's contents once it's complete, but I guess because I never finished Production I didn't get round to the lead either, oops. That's very interesting about the NBK songs influencing the musical direction. I don't think I'd read about that before, so I'll dig around, and if you happen to come across any of the articles arguing the case for "Teenage Dream", I'd much appreciate the links :). Thank you very much for the Itzkoff links - I think they're amongst a handful on the NBK talk page for future use, and I think I probably added them to Max Adler's page when it was up for deletion, but I really don't know why I never got around to including them in NBK itself, because they're certainly incredibly useful. If Murphy gave such incisive interviews for every episode, we'd never have a problem with Production sections...

I'm not totally sure what I'll concentrate on after "Duets" and NBK (I found that I didn't much enjoy many of the episodes between "The Substitute" and "Sexy", so the thought of spending a lot of time on articles like "A Very Glee Christmas" is a bit off-putting!), but I think of the remaining s2 articles, "Blame It on the Alcohol" and "Sexy" are the closest to completion, and I guess it can't hurt to clear the decks of the nearly-dones ahead of the hardly-starteds. I might go for "Sexy" just because I wrote a fair chunk of it, whereas the majority of "Blame It" was assembled by

User:DAP388

, so I'm more familiar with the latter.

Aaand I've just seen that "Comeback" is now a GA! Again, thank you so much for your help. 11 down, 11 to go :D Frickative 13:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Having said all that, I've just realised that "Comeback" was WP:GLEE's 47th GA, so it's entirely possible that after "Duets" and NBK, I might try and pick something significant for the big 5-0. I just have no idea what that might be at present! Frickative 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm about halfway done with the storylines, I think. I'm skipping over the ones that have already made GA for now, and with "Blame It on the Alcohol" just completed, I'm going to try to hit "Sexy" today, which would finish off the remaining B-grade article storylines, especially as it's the one of those two you might go for first. Congrats on the GAing of "Comeback"; let me know what you eventually decide to take for the golden 50th. After that comes the final four. Then I imagine I'll revisit storylines in the GAs, since some definitely need tweaking, though I'm contemplating doing work on the "reception" sections to give it a try. (Probably not "A Very Glee Christmas"; I wasn't much fond of it either.)

I'll definitely see if I can find where I read the argument that the increased top-40 focus stemmed in part from the success of "Teenage Dream"—it would be from later in the season, of course, which means it could be almost anywhere—though as I type this I wonder if it was the Warblers themselves that were a factor in the change, since that was their rep. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think you'd want to finish "Sexy" before "Blame It on the Alcohol" regardless, as the former is far closer to completion than the latter. "Blame" doesn't have a Production section (surprised the heck out of me when I couldn't find it), and it also doesn't have a "Controversy" section discussing the dismissive treatment of bisexuality in the storyline, even beyond Blaine's questioning of what had been a bedrock of his character. (Production should certainly discuss the Ausiello blind item of a character questioning their sexuality, and the fallout. I laughed when I read the AfterElton article that characterized the Ausiello item as "poorly written"...) At any rate, I did badly enough finding just the AfterElton article that I've decided to leave it to someone who's a far better websearcher than I. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just read your edits to "Sexy", great stuff :) (I particularly love the line about Kurt's "sexy" faces, haha.) I'd forgotten how close that one was to completion - I think I asked DAP told hold off a GA nom because I wanted to draw from a wider variety of reviewers under "Critical response" ("Blame It" also pulls from quite a narrow pool), but beyond that, it shouldn't take much more than a general polish. You're right, "Blame It" will be a bit more work by the look of things, but I'd forgotten that was the bisexuality episode, so that will definitely make compiling a Production section easier. Controversy sections are generally discouraged (something to do with it often inflating the importance of storms-in-teacups), but it should definitely be covered under reception. I remember having a quick search for sources when it was mentioned on the talk page and not coming up with much, but from working on

Characters of Glee, but frankly it might turn out to be too daunting. Frickative

02:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And finally, on a completely different topic, someone added Santana and Mercedes back onto the list of Sam's significant others. I can't get involved there; if it's convenient, please take a look and do whatever you think best. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Since writing that I'm not making progress sometimes results in progress shortly thereafter, I'm mentioning this here, but if you have any hints (and I haven't posted anything new to the "Furt" article showing that I've actually figured out what to do), please let me know. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the way I find easiest is to organise and re-organise everything until the basic layout of quotes/opinions is there, so all that's left is to start connecting it. For example, although I haven't got far with it yet,

this is how I've kicked off collecting the contents of reviews for "Duets" - I'll continue that way until I've been through all of the articles, then look at each individual sub-section, strip the blockquotes back to the most pertinent lines, and reshuffle so the similar comments are grouped together. If that's the way you've already copied things down then I'm sorry this isn't helpful! Erm, digging back through a different sandbox, this is where I started with the reception for NBK, and then cycling through the 'newer revisions' shows how it came together. This way, I find it easier to make connections between which reviewers are saying similar things about particular plot elements, and just to tease out the key themes of the week's reviews. Frickative

19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. I took at look at what you did, however, and realized that it wouldn't work for me: I have trouble including everything and then whittling down; it's better if I build up from nothing using quotes and opinions I've mined from the various articles. I posted the completely rewritten and expanded Critical Reception section for "Furt" a little while ago; what I ended up doing was mentally outlining the sections I wanted to cover based on their frequency in the reviews: overall reaction, Burnett guest role, Burt-Carole wedding, Sue's wedding, other reactions. This ends up starting mostly positive, and ending in negative territory. I may have bumped Burnett behind overall reaction because I felt the section should start with that regardless. Then I picked the three or four most representative opinions/quotes, and put them in where they seemed to flow best, or balanced well. I added Sam/Quinn on to the end of the bullying paragraph because I decided I should include it after all, and didn't want two tiny paragraphs at the end. Let me know whether you think it works. If what I've done seems reasonable, I'll tackle the Music section next; as noted previously, it should be easier. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done an exceptionally good job! The order works well, the balance of quotes and summation feels right, and 'his colleague Kevin Fallon was brief and to the point: "Blergh."' is frankly a brilliant line, haha. It makes for an interesting read as well – for some reason I'd assumed that "Furt" wouldn't have been too popular with the critics (I probably felt similar to Canning towards it), so the praise is quite revelatory. Length-wise I think it's spot-on, and I suppose it's a definite drawback of my method that sometimes such sections end up 1,500 word monsters like NBK and the original draft of "Comeback". The only suggestion I'd make would be, when you make a broad statement that's followed by quotes from a single publication (eg. 'Many reviewers noted the "homage" of the wedding procession; the Wall Street Journal invited readers to compare the original viral "JK Wedding Entrance Dance" YouTube video, and the subsequent procession from the "Niagara" episode of The Office with Glee's version in "Furt".') you can add in a second reference that links to a few other similar reviews, ie. <ref>The following reviewers also commented on the "homage" element: *{{cite web|blah blah blah}} *{{cite news|eg eg eg}} </ref>. I'd suggest something similar for the following sentence about the procession/"Marry You", but I assume that will be covered more in the forthcoming "Music" section? But yes, I think you've done a frankly marvellous job and can move on to "Music" without concern :) Frickative 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You're very reassuring, and I'm glad you're pleased with my first effort with Critical reception. I appreciate the suggestions on how to make it better; it's still a work in progress, and I'll be tinkering around the edges even as I fix important omissions.

I loved the Fallon quote. He didn't like either wedding, actually—I've just gone back and added an "on the other hand" section to the Burt/Carole paragraph including him there—but fortunately the "Blergh" was his response to Sue, even though he liked the other wedding less, probably the only reviewer to do so. I get the feeling that the main wedding left good feelings in a number of reviewers; although they may not have been happy with various aspects of the episode, it was enough to tip the balance. And, as I'm sure you've noticed over time, most of the "recaps" have very little to latch onto in the way of useful critical commentary, which limits the number of available useful reviews.

Very good point about giving more examples/references for broad statements. I've added Stack to the viral video bit, but I didn't do a good job of noting down others who mentioned it even while not really commenting on it; I need to go back to find another couple of names once I'm done in the Music and performances section, and will make sure the "Marry You" comment is better supported (if not moved entirely into the new section). And speaking of the music section, I've got a starter paragraph up—I thought the musical delay worked better here than in the critical reception section—and think I'll write up and post new paragraphs one song at a time, though I might go out of order to better relate the two songs by Bruno Mars.

Now the obvious question: while I think "Furt" will be at a "B" once I've finished the Music section, what else will it need (aside from a rigorous copyedit) before we should try for a GA? (I just changed the outdent above to a "Furt" header; the old section seems to divide neatly there, and this thread is "Furt"-centric.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to include a mention of Jean Bentley's TV Squad review—at least, that's what last November's reference link says it is—but it's now coming up under AOL TV, though everything else appears to be the same (title, author, etc.). So, what should I do? Should I say about her "of TV Squad (now AOL TV)", "of AOL TV", or just "of TV Squad"? The reference, since I just read it Sunday, has to be updated, in my opinion, to reflect the current URL, not what Yves saved back then. If I get ready to post it before you reply, I'll go with my best guess, and update if I don't get it right; I figure it's a quick fix either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And...it's done. I also expanded the intro a bit to mention plot, reception, and music. Feel free to improve anything, which includes cutting down where necessary: I may have overdone the number of examples in some places. I think I'm going to adjust the various pages to call it a "B" article. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic work! You've done a really brilliant job, and I very much enjoyed reading the completed music section :) Definitely B-class now! I think listing Bentley as AOL TV was the best thing to do - it would be different if it was a print medium eg. a newspaper that switched publisher, but as it's online and continuous, I think the update is appropriate. Wrt shooting for GA... I don't think there's much to do! Frustratingly, I'm sure I recall some cast interviews prior to the episode that might have been helpful for Production (primarily Mike O'Malley and Romy Rosemont, but I think that's also where Naya Rivera's strange and fleeting 'Santana's in love with Finn!' insistence originated) but I'm unable to find any now. As Burnett didn't reappear in s2, and to the best of my knowledge there's been no news about her appearing in s3, perhaps "Burnett will re-appear on the series in a future episode" should be amended with the qualifier that the actress said so in Nov 2010? Beyond that, ratings is missing Canada and Australia, but I'll go and take care of that now while it's on my mind. Again, wonderful work :) Frickative 23:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're going to turn my head. :-) Thank you! Thanks also for pointing out the Burnett issue; let me know if I've handled it well, since I didn't take the November 2010 approach. (I can always change it.) While reading the TV Guide interview with Burnett, I discovered it wasn't Burnett who had the idea for her to do "Ohio", but Burnett's husband! That's the other fix. I'll see if I can locate those cast interviews you were talking about for Production—it would be nice to have something from either Rosemont or O'Malley on the wedding (why does that suddenly ring a bell?)—but I think the article can go on without it...and I rather expect you're better at sleuthing out this sort of information than I am.

As for pulling the trigger for GA, I think I'm going to let this sit a day or two before I do a final pass through for style and any grammatical glitches. Plus I really need to get cracking on the Finn Hudson material I promised HorrorFan121 in the meantime; I'm delaying a GA review there! (Which, incidentally, may mean that 50 GAs is upon us before you planned...) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And while I was typing the above, you got in with the Canada and Australia material. Thank you so much! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Sorry for muddling the dashes, I should have double-checked which style the article was using, but thanks for fixing it so quickly :) The Burnett sentence reads fine now, and good catch on "Ohio"! I've dug around for the interviews and I'm drawing a total blank. I've found a couple that touch on the wedding, but only very briefly (this from Rosemont has a few sentences on the relationship in general which would probably be more useful in

Characters of Glee, and here O'Malley notes that the wedding episode was different from his usual more serious fare). Good luck with the GA nom! I'll give it a check through too, just for any minor bits and pieces, but by and large I think it looks ready to go :). As for the 50th GA... I think 'Characters of Glee' was definitely too ambitious, so whatever it ends up being is great. Maybe for the 75th or 100th! Frickative

15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at the article in the morning, and if it still looks okay when I'm more awake, I'll probably then start the "Furt" GAN in motion. I can't think of anything left to do; if we do find more Production information, it can be inserted later. (After all, they do say to keep improving articles even after they've been declared GA...) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I took the plunge and added the nomination to the "Furt" talk page; it's been picked up and posted on the GAN page (currently number 73). Fingers crossed! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, I only skim-read the O'Malley interview, but I've bookmarked it now to take a closer look at when "Sexy" is on the cards. And excellent, I hope the GA review goes well - best of luck! Frickative 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Robert just picked it up about an hour ago, so it's on its way! I hope it goes well, too. And while I've got you here, how are your own GA-to-be projects going? I'm thinking of "Duets" and "Never Been Kissed" in particular... :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's just say you've put me to shame with your work on "Furt"! My attention span over the past few days has been a little limited, and most of my recent edits have been maintenance rather than content building. I've a mind to tackle the crit. resp. in NBK tonight, though, and if I can pull it in to 750 words, I'll be a lot happier with it. Frickative 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

On another front, when I'm done with Finn, I was wondering what to do next. I think the two that look most interesting are "Special Education", which has a complete-looking list of reception and music thanks to Yves, so it would be much like "Furt" in terms of effort involved, and "Prom Queen", which has no list of links, and therefore would require me to collect them myself. In both cases, it's the reception and musical performances sections that are lacking (or almost non-existent); what do you think? BlueMoonset (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've just done something new: I not only expanded the

Glee task force "to do" section to reflect most of the outstanding project (all the episodes, and some of the general pages and characters), but I also added a section on the bottom indicating who was working on what, so we don't end up with more than one person duplicating work on the same articles. Is that all right? I only listed the ones I was sure of for you and for HF; feel free to change whatever needs changing. I didn't bother to list the two current GANs. BlueMoonset (talk

) 19:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased to note that "Furt" just made GA status. It'll always be my first. :D BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations for "Furt" passing! You did a great job, and that was very well deserved :D. Re: NBK, thank you, I was surprised by how easy it was to whittle down actually - I didn't touch the last couple of paragraphs, so I might give those a tweak too. Wrt da Moraes and Yahr, I'm really not sure but have wondered plenty of times. I came to the vague conclusion that as the Washington Post recaps/reviews say by de Moraes and filed by Yahr, it's perhaps meant to indicate that Yahr posts them on her behalf? I don't know if that makes sense =/. I know the E! recaps come under the Kristin dos Santos byline but are usually written by Jenna Mullins, but dos Santos doesn't get any auctorial credit there the way de Moraes appears to... Hm. Good thought on "Teenage Dream" - it looks like there are a couple of sentences in the Presents the Warblers article, but they perhaps contradict the 'Bubs flying in, so if you've read differently and can find sources, it would be great if you could add that! (Equally, I'd be happy to do it, but I think your Warbler knowledge far outstrips mine - I wasn't even aware of how many there were until you mentioned identifying them :p).

It looks like a close call between "Special Education" and "Prom Queen", particularly as both have an equal number of songs and were riddled with minor plot strands. Take this with a huge pinch of salt, but gut instinct says PQ might be easier, because I should think the main focus of reviews would be Kurt, whereas SE is likely to be a bit more all over the place. The easiest way to judge is probably just to skim a handful of reviews for each, really, and finding the sources for PQ shouldn't be a problem (just pinging Glee "Prom Queen" into the sites listed here should bring them all up. CNN, CBS and USA Today don't always review, and the E! Online search engine is useless, but so are the reviews most weeks, ha.)

The to-do list updates are excellent! It's gone from hopelessly neglected to a very useful resource. I know there's a way to insert to-do lists into WikiProject banners, and it would be great to have it come up on the talk page of all Glee-related articles - I'm just not certain whether it would be possible with WP:GLEE being part of the WP:TV template. I'll look into it though, because it would be excellent if it could prompt participation from a wider range of editors. Frickative 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to further tweaks on NBK, if you decide to do them...but more on you finishing it. So far as I know, "filed by" means it's the person who wrote the article "filing" it. It wouldn't make sense to mention the person who merely posts the bylined author's review. The name of the blog column is "The TV Column", and the column's official author is "Lisa de Moraes". (The menu hierarchy says that the posts appear under "Moraes on TV".) I think the way this works is that although it appears in Lisa's column, when someone else writes the review, they put this credit line in it; in this case, it's "This blog post was filed by Emily Yahr:", which indicates to me that Emily wrote it, and Lisa posted it in her column. (Another week's review: "WaPo TeamTV's Emily Yahr filed this dispatch:". And, for "A Very Glee Christmas", it says "WaPo Team TV's Emily Yahr writes:".) Given all this, I'd say to give Emily the credit, not Lisa, and in both the article and the ref, whenever she's listed before the review starts. (Incidentally, in the stretch from "Never Been Kissed" to "A Very Glee Christmas", Emily was credited with all the Glee reviews and with a single story about a show's cancellation; everything else was written by Lisa.)

I took the lazy way out, and started "Special Education" because the links were already there: I've already done my survey of them, and sequestered useful quotes and grades and commentary in a file. But I may start gathering same for "Prom Queen" in parallel if I find myself unable/willing to write up the next paragraph on SE. (Also, I want as much of that Glee Task Force discussion page second season table's first column to go GA as possible before significant inroads are made on the bottom of the second column; with you working on NBK and then Duets, that just leaves number ten as a laggard.) BTW, before I forget, you can remove "Furt" from your own talk page to-do list, since it's done. :D And speaking of to-do lists, glad you liked the updates. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, completely forgot to address "Teenage Dream". It was Darren who flew in from California to New York (which he mentions in an interview somewhere; it's one of the ones cited on the Blaine Anderson page); the Bubs came down from Somerville, and my guess is that they were driven down on a bus of some kind rather than flown (it doesn't make sense, when it's a four-hour trip, to put eleven guys on a plane when a bus will get them there just about as fast and cost far less) and put up in a hotel or the like. But I'm not sure whether I've read anything specific about that recording trip. It was the only Warblers song they made that way; the rest had the backgrounds recorded by the Bubs in Somerville, about a mile from the Tufts campus; it's unclear whether Criss recorded some or all of the others in New York, or at the studio where Glee numbers are usually recorded (the Hollywood Reporter article is a bit ambiguous on that score), though a Criss interview might have more precise information. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong about the Bubs and Criss meeting. If they both recorded "Teenage Dream" in New York (which it seems was true), it must not have been at the same time, because in the EW interview here, published on November 30 (the night "Hey, Soul Sister" aired), Eli Seidman, one of the Bubs, says "I would say if we could meet Darren [Criss], that would be cool", which he wouldn't say if they'd recorded at the same time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, BlueMoonset. I was wondering, where do you think we are with Kurt Hummel? I think we've fixed everything from the previous FAC, and I think it has a big shot at becoming a FA now. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been waiting to hear that Bejinhan was done before doing a number of edits that I've been contemplating, ones that I think are necessary before trying for FA. I'm willing to assume she's done and start in on my own edits. There's at least one item from the peer review that definitely needs addressing still, even beyond the prose improvements that should help generally. I strongly advise waiting a couple of days before starting the FA process, to give me a chance to work on it.

Probably not what you were hoping to hear, but we want to put our best foot forward on this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! I don't want to go to FAC again unprepared. That obviously didn't turn out well, as you might have noticed from the previous review. We need to have everything in order before taking it back there, because it's much better to be ready. HorrorFan121 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done a lot of the work I've been wanting to do this morning, including rejiggering the beginning of the "Characterization" section to clarify the issue singled out in the peer review. How does it read now? I sidestepped just a bit by quoting more of Colfer's original, but I think it holds together reasonably well, and I didn't want to over-interpret the quote, since that's the source material. There's still more to come—among other things, I need to search out those two GLAAD awards and add them (and their references!)—but let me know if there are any places you'd like more work done. I did remove the last review in the Music section; the Berk didn't feel right there, and there were plenty of others listed, so I pulled it entirely; if you want it included, it should probably go earlier in the paragraph to avoid ending with the least favorable of the reviews (three stars out of five). Pulling it did save me from finding a rephrase of the sentence with "also" in it, because it was one "also" too many... And speaking of alsos, I'm also working on Finn, though it's going slowly and is still not ready for uploading. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it reads great now. Nice work! ;) The GLAAD wins should be on the Glee page in the awards section. I can go see if they're there. As for Finn, that's great. I think you have as much time as you need with the nomination on hold. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) I ultimately found the GLAAD wins on the List of awards and nominations received by Glee page, though when I got there I was taken up with fixing the page, which had lost twenty awards off the bottom of the "Other awards" table sometime last week. So it's a good thing you sent me looking! I'll pick up the refs from the page later this evening when I get the chance, and add them to Kurt's page. (If either are stale, I've found alternates.) And after that, Finn. I've got the first season musical data I need, and am assembling the second season's. Tomorrow, I'll do a final read of Kurt. I'm considering printing it out for the first time: somehow, infelicities are easier to spot when it's hardcopy, and for an FA nom, it's worth taking that step. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I can print it out too and check for any mistakes, but I'm much more of a content builder than a copy-editor. Haha! I'm also going to take a final look at the references and make sure not one of them is dead, because I really screwed up with the references last time. Also, would you want to join nominate it together? I know a lot of people do that. That way we can both actively be involved in the nomination. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I just rejiggered the Accolades section, and added some content. See if it still works for you, especially the Time 100 sentence (two things: I'm not sure "performance" works that close to the paragraph intro, and "earned" is a bit troubling in that context) and the Emmys. Thanks.

Thanks for the joint nomination offer, but I think I'd feel a little weird if my first nomination—even if joint—was an FA. Sorry. If I'd been around longer, or had written more of the core content of the article, maybe, but neither is the case. I'm happy to help with anything that comes up if I'm available—rewrites, additional editing, finding different links, etc. I just don't feel right about taking ownership. I imagine it'll take me a few successful GA noms at least before this might change. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally get what you're saying. So, that's perfectly okay. I was just wondering because you have been putting a lot of work into it. Haha. If Finn passes, then we have a total of nine good character articles for Glee and potentially a FA. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer. Thanks. BTW, I just shrunk down "father" on the Karofsky page infobox, only to realize that these parenthetical descriptions are normal size on Kurt's but small on Finn's. Looking further afield shows Quinn to be normal, but Rachel to be small, etc. Do you have any idea which it should be? Should I ask Frickative? I'd hate to have Kurt stumble on a minor formatting issue—I don't intend to change his unless I hear we should—but we probably ought to be consistent throughout the Glee character pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it matters if there's only a couple of names in the parameter. I know big soap characters like Erica Kane and Victoria Lord use them to save space in the info box, but that's because they include so many relatives. HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(I haven't had chance to read through the changes to Kurt yet, but this caught my eye!) I've been told by editors in the past that <small> tags should be avoided in infoboxes for

WP:ACCESS reasons, but I've never actually found the guideline/policy that says so. Still, I'd probably err on the side of caution and avoid them, unless specifically requested otherwise during the course of a review. Frickative

15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frickative. I'll be happy to err on the side of caution; while Kurt's infobox doesn't have the tag now (and that won't change), Finn's does, and I'll take them all out on the next edit. Ditto with any other character page I touch in future. Hope you have a chance to at least scan through Kurt's article; it'd be nice to have another pair of eyes before FA submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, question for you both. I'm doing my final on-paper edit of the article (12 pages, including references), and find I want to make a change to the Storyline, Season 2, first paragraph, "Never Been Kissed" initial sentence. What I'm proposing to do is to replace "the club's lead singer" (referring to the Warblers and Blaine in particular) with this: who then flirts with him while singing lead in a Warblers performance of "Teenage Dream". The resulting sentence: In "Never Been Kissed", Kurt goes to spy on the Dalton Academy glee club, the Warblers—New Directions' primary competition for Sectionals—and meets openly gay student Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss), who then flirts with him while singing lead in a Warblers performance of "Teenage Dream".

The question is, do you think this is a valid change? I've reviewed the scene, and it seems clear that this is what's going on, though Kurt doesn't catch on until after he's finished confirming that this looks like a great place to go to school and Blaine wasn't kidding about the Warblers being rock stars...but maybe that isn't sufficient for an article. Other interpretations, like Blaine is merely playing to "the new kid", or having fun with a guy he's figured is a spy for the competition, don't satisfactorily explain Kurt's changing reactions in the scene, especially the moment when he realizes what Blaine's doing. (I am currently going back and forth as to whether "then" ought to be in the changed sentence.) I do like getting "Teenage Dream" in there, since it's such a turning point in so many ways, even if Kurt isn't the one singing it.

At any rate, expect a few dozen changes to come through in a couple of hours—I have to run a few errands first—and then review the textual changes I've marked (the puncuation and ref corrections are golden), at which point I'll enter what I have. I'll hold off on the one above until I have your thoughts. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes are done, except the one discussed above and a new one in the next paragraph below. (Sorry for seeming to talking to myself like this, but I thought the individual steps needed to be noted.) I just had a moment of temporary heart failure, looking at the Talk page here, where Moni3 says that all FAs have to have critical commentary in the present tense (e.g., "Stack writes that"). However, I decided to check out other FAs to see if this was indeed true, and the first one I saw that was on a topic I knew something about,

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

, had words like "wrote" and "called" and all those other lovely past tense words we've been using in the Critical response section. It's a comparatively recent FA—only eighteen months old—so I'm not going to bother changing anything in our sections. If they really want that kind of rewording, we can do it when asked.

Moni3 also suggests not linking common words within quotes. The only one I'm wondering about that I haven't done is in Casting and creation, paragraph 1, last line:

Juilliard. I did get rid of the one for "flamboyant" on Characterization, line 1, since it goes to "effeminacy" and Chris may not have meant that. Let me know what you think about these two! BlueMoonset (talk

) 02:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Blaine flirting with Kurt,

WP:PRIMARY becomes an issue here: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The policy allows us to use the episodes to make straightforward statements about what happens in them, but when it comes to the characters' thoughts, feelings and motivations, we're not supposed to interpret them ourselves. That said, I agree that the "Teenage Dream" performance is good to touch on, and perhaps it would be acceptable to make the change as long as the episode citation is accompanied by a reliable secondary source which also asserts that Blaine was flirting with Kurt. I've done a pretty basic keyword search and turned up Criss' Out interview which recaps in the first paragraph

"Blaine released Kurt's hand and launched into Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream," flirtily crooning it his way". There may well be plenty more out there.

Finally, kudos for the amount of work you've put in! I'm overviewing the recent changes now, and it's really looking great. HF, one thing that's just caught my eye is the sentence "The character's sense of fashion is vital to understanding his character." As I mentioned wrt Rachel's article, this sort of statement really needs a citation, or it's going to be pulled up as

original research. Frickative

14:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

About Juilliard, with the spin-off and future plans being so murky, I'd rather not include anything about such speculations at all. If the link within the quote is problematic for an FA, then it ought to go, at least for the time being, though it seems a shame to lose it. As Schue says to Finn, sometimes you can't always get what you want. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. =/ I don't know about adding all the information about the potential spin-off until we get more information about it. As of right now, we can just assume that they're still going to graduate but remain on the show. I don't think we've seen any new information come out just yet, but that's likely to change. The Glee creators made a complete mess of everything involving that. Haha. I'll see what I can do about that line that dictates that it's vital to understanding his character. Frickative, do you think it should be removed entirely, or just reworded differently? I doubt we can find a source saying his wardrobe is vital to understanding his character. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not suggesting adding a lot of information about the spin-off (certainly no more than a sentence or two, and nothing of a speculative nature), but as it is, the paragraph boils down to "Ryan Murphy said this, then Brad Falchuk refuted it", with no indication of why the exec producers were singing from different hymn-sheets, which could potentially confuse a reader unfamiliar with the topic. But if you both think it's better left unsaid, I won't push it :). Good stuff with the AfterElton source, that works well! Hm, I think we should probably just rejig the fashion paragraph and excise the "vital" sentence. Maybe as a new lead-in, we could tie it into the flamboyancy already discussed with a source like this which notes his "flamboyant fashion sense". Frickative 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of this, "Kurt's flamboyant fashion sense is regularly recognized in his daily wardrobe"? HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you want to avoid "flamboyant" because it doesn't agree with Eyrich's "quietly flashy"; "flamboyant" just isn't quiet. I've been noodling with the sentence, and while I'm still playing with a few word choices, I'm reasonably happy with: "Kurt’s acute fashion sense is exhibited/shown/seen in his on-screen wardrobe." The initial "is" could be changed to "can be" if "seen" is used, and you could even use "is demonstrated by his", I suppose. Then it leads nicely into the Eyrich quotes and information that expand on it. I hope this helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your line would work perfectly. That way it won't be consider original research, and works nicely as the opening of the Eyrich quote. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After playing with a few versions in preview, I went with the "is exhibited in" version; I just updated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I keep coming back to the two free images of Colfer, both besuited and used in consecutive sections. How about swapping one for something like this from the tour? It could be used beside "Musical performances", and has the additional benefit of being an "in-character" image. Frickative 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. They are awfully similar. Of the two images, I think the first is a better picture of Colfer, though the second is decent, plus it has the word "award" right there in the background, which is why it seems so perfect to use in the Accolades section. But in such close proximity, I think that if one should go, it should be the second of the two. If we could get the in-character Kurt photo from the tour, or one like it, that would be great. Now that you've pointed it out, it occurs to me that there may, in fact, be a huge number of tour photos out there of the cast that could be used in the various character articles...assuming that one or more of those picture-takers is willing to offer them for the cause. BTW, thanks for fixing those links in the refs (and the AfterElton typo; I missed that on hardcopy!); it inspired me to recheck the fixes I made to Blaine Anderson last night, and I found a couple more to fix. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and thanks for finding that link with the pictures of the twelve kids (which I was able to access today after the EW server initially balked; all photos were available); I guess my change to that sentence made its absence a little too obvious. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there was no auctorial credit on any of the EW pages. Just a bunch of photo credits (all "Adam Rose/Fox") and brief captions for each. Brittany/Heather Morris had both mini-Brittany and mini-Quinn on her lap; I'm guessing Agron was not available for the photo shoot. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I just uploaded the photo Frickative pointed out to the commons here. I can go swap the second image in the "Accolades" section and put this one in the "Musical Performances" section, but I think it would look better cropped. I was actually previously considering swapping one of the images out for one of Darren Criss. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the photo would look better cropped so it's more vertical and can be taller. If that can be done, it would be great. (I made a slight change to the caption to specify that it was Colfer as Kurt, since it's an in-character image.) The obvious place for a Criss photo would be in the Relationships section, but it would require eliminating the Murphy quote, or working to subsume it into the paragraph. If you decided on the latter, I think the quote could go before "Kurt transfers from McKinley High", and instead of the "Murphy on the Kurt–Blaine relationship" at the end, something like the following phrase could be used before the quote: "A few days after Blaine was introduced, Murphy commented/remarked/said/stated," (it was actually four days). That might make too many photos in quick succession after a dearth in the first two sections, but it's hard for me to visualize. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I just cropped it, but it might take a couple of minutes for the servers to fix the width/height now on the page. I was thinking of leaving the Murphy quote, and possibly put the photo of Criss in the "Reception" section since it covers some of the Blaine-Kurt reception. That would mean eliminating the Colfer image though. So, I'm not sure about that. I guess we should just leave it as is for now. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The cropping looks good, but I think the "260px" in the image definition is causing it to stretch wide, so I've removed it for the moment. If there's a different number that should be inserted, please do; I haven't dealt with photos yet, so I'm acutely aware my change may not be ideal. BTW, if you decided to put Blaine in Reception, you could restore the awards Kurt photo to Accolades; I think the red Kurt is a bit too big for Accolades, unless you want to shrink big red and use it there.

Incidentally, there's a comment in the code at the top of the Critical Reception section that suggests a different structure for the section than the one we have now. Either it's worth considering and attempting a rewrite to that structure now, or we should delete the comment before FA is requested; you may know the history of it, though I definitely do not. I think it's a bad idea to leave the comment there for any reviewer to see. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you fixed it. ;) I'll try swapping out the Colfer image for one of Darren Criss. The code at the top of the "Reception" section was by Frickative when we originally started building it up as a guideline. That can easily be removed. HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. I'd hate to have busted it. :-) I did a little playing around with preview and image sizes, and have a suggestion: shrink the Criss image down to 150px, and then add back the Accolades image of Colfer, which was also at 150px. I think it looks pretty decent that way, and that way we get a nice balance of images, the last of which is of Colfer as Colfer. But you may have another preference. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can go add that back. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the Colfer pic to Commons, HF! I really hate to throw a spanner in the works at this stage, but

WP:ALPHABETSOUP, I don't know how I remember half of these), it's better just to use 'thumb' or 'upright' rather than forcing an image size in pixels - it keeps the image widths uniform, and lends itself better to users' personal preferences. Lastly, we've got a string of idiot IP vandals at List of Glee episodes, if you could both just keep an eye on it. If it carries on, I'll request page protection. Frickative

21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a little confusing. Haha! Okay, so we can drop the quote box and move the Criss image to the "Storylines" section. I can also go fix the picture format. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, sorry! I went ahead and made some changes [1], but do play around with them if you can think of a better sequence. The general principle is just to have the images facing towards the text rather than out of the page, and if that means they can't all be right-aligned, then to alternate right-left-right-left etc. If the Criss image stays up there, the caption may potentially need altering. Frickative 01:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it! ;) I fiddle with them a little bit and moved them up. Since the Criss image is now in the "Storylines" section, we could do something like "Kurt's storyline's have significantly revolved around the lead singer of the Dalton Academy Warblers, Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss). HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

After playing with the caption, I opted for something simpler to reflect Blaine's new location, that also echoed the previous wording: "The storyline pairing Kurt and Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss) ran for most of the second season." BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

...and I just added a ", pictured" after "Criss", because there ought to be one. I was also wondering whether we needed one in the Murphy photo, although the construction "Ryan Murphy's (pictured) life" is a tad awkward. (Don't know whether it would raise hackles in an FA review or not.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've since done a slight rewording of the Murphy caption (mostly shifting existing words) to add "pictured" while eliminating the possessive. I've also gone through and regularized the references so that the same "work" has the same "publisher" field throughout, and corrected a typo or two. The obvious question after six days and 3311 additional bytes: is the article now ready to go? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out of town all day and couldn't reply quickly. I just checked out some of your changes to the article an nice work again! If this article passes it's definitely from the help of Frickative and yourself. I certaintly could not have done it all on my own. And yes, I do believe it is ready to go. We've gone through everything down to the last line. Hah! I just have to make sure the second PR is archived and we should be good to go! ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you just started the FAC. Rather than continue this topic here during the review, you might want to start a section on your talk page or the Kurt talk page, whichever is more appropriate. That way, you and I and Frickative can consult if knotty issues arise during the review, or if we want to get the best rephrasing of a sentence where a clarification or revision is requested.

However, I did want to suggest some edits to your nomination paragraph; I'm doing so here as it seemed wildly inappropriate to edit it on the nomination page itself, since the words there should be yours. The suggestions, sentence by sentence, are as follows:

• "Kurt Hummel is quite a fascinating character to grace the screens of television these days." Perhaps "is one of the most fascinating and controversial characters on television today"? (Don't know whether you want to include "and controversial" at this point.)
• "He's a representation of how people struggle with bullying in high school, has often been regarded as an icon for the gay community, and is referred to by critics as a "fashionista"." I'd start with "He is an example of how"; I'm not excited about the "fashionista" part, but have no particular objection to it.
• "His pairing with Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss) grew popular with fans and critics, with Jarett Wieselman of the New York Post labeling them "one of the most beloved TV couples of the millennium"." Instead of "grew" I'd say instead "has become"
• "Originally a background character on the show, he's grown into one of the most complicating leading character's to ever be featured on Glee." I'd change "background character on the show" to "supporting character on Glee", "he's grown" to "he has developed", "complicating" to "complex", "character's" to "characters" (no apostrophe, just a simple plural), and "to ever be featured on Glee" to a simple "on the show". Final sentence: Originally a supporting character on Glee, he has developed into one of the most complex leading characters on the show.
• "The article is currently a Good Article, and has undergone a two peer review's and several copy-edits by several different users." Just change "review's" to "reviews" and, to avoid have "several" twice in close proximity, either delete the first "several" or change "several different" to "various" and you're set.
• This is the second time I've taken this article to FAC in hopes of it reaching FA status." Looks good to me!

Hope this helps! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks for the suggestions. I'll go change that now. I think it would be best to start something like that on Kurt's talk page, which I can do after I edit the nomination paragraph. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed everything fully but the sentence that now reads "leading character to ever be featured on the show", which should be either "leading characters on the show" (my original suggestion) or "leading characters featured on the show"; in both cases, it needs to be "characters" with an "s". I strongly urge dropping "ever to be" whatever you do; after all, it's only been two years.

Okay, I think I got everything fixed from your suggestions. ;) I also started a "Featured Article Nomination Process" section at Talk:Kurt Hummel. FA's tend to get looked at rather quickly, so I don't think we'll have to wait too long to get any feedback. HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)