Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grey's Anatomy (season 17)/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2021 [1].

Grey's Anatomy (season 17)

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the seventeenth season of Grey's Anatomy which had one of the largest coronavirus-centric plots throughout the 2020-21 television season. Throughout the last few months I have put in a ton of work expanding the article eventually leading to an extensive Good Article review. With this work I feel that the article could become a Featured Article and believe that it should be featured because of the notable topics that the subject covered. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

@

Aoba47: Alright I think that I have addressed everything you mentioned. I removed the portion Dane's return being kept secret. Specifically in this context Dane's return was kept secret until the episode aired while Leigh's return was publicized in the week leading up to it (we were expecting to see Leigh but not Dane). When compared to the rest of the returning everything was mixed so since I didn't note the rest I feel its better to remove: Dempsey's return was kept secret from cast and crew (other than those on scene filming + McKidd), Drew's return was announced well before the episode aired, and I believe that Knight's return was also publicized the week leading. Other than that everything should be good; thanks for taking this time to review this article, I hope your upcoming Wikibreak helps you get some well-needed rest! TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC and thank you for the kind words!

Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

While this has attracted a general support the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel like this is a bad setup for the FAC process. This isn't an overwhelming series of opposes or even a lack of addressing comments of my part. It is solely a lack of people willing to review. I've done everything I can to move the process along, I can force myself to resolve any issues but I can't force other people to support or oppose the article. I'll leave a comment on the main FAC talk page and see if anyone else is willing to review it, but I feel like there should be a better system in place for situations like this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional update really quick in case you or any other FAC Coordinator is looking at this, I'm working on addressing the below comments, I've addressed most everything aside from about four specific things, if I counted correctly. I should have a block of time either late tomorrow or early Thursday to address what's left. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

Just kind of trying to not screw this up. I've never watched this series nor this specific season so forgive me for any mistakes.

• Cast members carried their own makeup bags to do their own last-minute touch-ups — I think the second instance of "their own" is redundant.
• the
  titular character
  ; making a reported — is the semi-colon meant to be a comma?
• Krista Vernoff on writing for the season. — per
  MOS:CAPFRAG
  , I do not think the full stop is needed.
• previously worked for the
  Center for Disease Control
  said — shouldn't there be a comma after "Control"?
• Andrew DeLuca, that was — should "that" be "which"?
• stated before leaving "I want — should there be a colon or comma after "leaving"?
• I don't want a title, just let me help." and explaining — having "and" after the full stop looks a little weird to me. Perhaps turn and explaining that while he was in the hospital with the coronavirus that he had six roommates and was the only white person. into a complete sentence (if you get what I'm saying).
• May 2020 instead of November 2020," writing/was a "major mistake;" — per
  MOS:LQ
  , I think the comma/semi-colon should be outside of the quotation...
• averaged 1.02 in the 18-49 demographic/Live+7 ratings, the season averaged 1.9 in the 18-49 demographic — I have no idea what this means. Pamzeis (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I believe I've addressed everything above, I used

MOS:LQ to fix your point above that as well, but if you think it would be better in separate sentences let me know and I'll be glad to fix it. For the last points I've added explanatory footnotes that explain what the terms mean as well as two additional wikilinks. Let me know if there's anything else! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Support — nice work! Pamzeis (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JJE

Prose and image placement seem good to me. I have to ask if the reception section is good - currently it's a bit "A said B". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that citations are consistently formatted, although I can't speak of their reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As

WP:RECEPTION points out this can't be avoided completely, I have however attempted to very it slightly from sentence to sentence, where possible. I'm currently in the process of working on any reliability issues from the source review that was left below. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• 1: OK.
• 115: I am not sure that the source is talking about an after the premiere?
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Don't quite understand what you're asking here. This source is here to verify the claim that "[...] in a two-hour back-to-back timeslot," the source states "an emotional two-hour season premiere of Grey’s Anatomy’s 17th season." TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear enough - I am unsure about what the "immediately following the first episode" is sourced to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• 84: Vancouver is not mentioned.
  • It was in the source before, just moved that part up to the sentence before so that way the sources verify where they should. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 130: OK.
• 68: OK.
• 9: OK.
• 8: OK.
• 24: OK.
• 91: OK.
• 49: Can I have a copy of this?
  • I swapped all of these Hulu sources out to Netflix since Hulu's rights expired. Although the link goes to Netflix these sources are the episodes themselves where the credits are being used to verify the appearance. Unfortunately, unless you have Netflix or some other means of viewing the episode, (other streaming services outside of the U.S. or the DVD set) I can't actually provide you a copy of it without breaking Netflix terms of service and/or U.S. copyright laws. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes it clearer, but I'll AGF on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 14: OK.
• 77: OK.
• 16: OK.
• 148: OK.
• 55: OK.
• 11: OK.
• 71: OK.
• 41: OK.
• 86: Where is "all of me" mentioned?
  • Added additional source which verified the last appearance. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 136: OK.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes the spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

Support – it's nice to see more TV articles getting promoted. Good work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "Filming on the series began in September 2020 while the season did not premiere until November 12, 2020, both delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic" - source for the delay claim?
• "Ellen Pompeo signed a one-year contract to return for the season, making her the highest-paid actress currently on broadcast television" - source?
• What makes Futon Critic a high-quality reliable source? Showbuzz Daily? Showbiz Cheatsheet? US Weekly? Pajiba? Tell-Tale TV? Jezebel? FanSided? HowStuffWorks?
• FN114: publication is incorrectly presented. Ditto 140, check for others
• FN122 is incomplete

• This is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Just to clarify, incomplete as in there being no author listed? There's not one listed on the article so I can attempt to replace it if that's the problem but everything else is complete I believe. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, if there's no author credited there's no author to list, that's fine. But there is a publication date that should be listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Added, thanks for pointing that out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FN128: is there no better sourcing for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced the first two, fixed the next to last two. No better sourcing for the DVDs, in the age of streaming I believe that it's pretty rare for full DVD reviews to be released now days. It feels odd not to include the information though but if the sources aren't up to standards I understand if it needs removed. Here's some discussions on the use of The Futon Critic where the overall consensus is that its reliable: 2008 discussion and 2015 discussion. The Cheatsheet, Fansided, and Tell-Tale TV sources have been removed per above comments. US Weekly and Jezebel have no consensus results from discussions (see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; however considering that the US Weekly uses are primarily based around interviews and since the Jezebel source isn't being used for a BLP claim (which is the primary issue addressed in the discussions) I feel that their uses are acceptable here. Disucssion here on Jezebel where it seems to be fine in its use in the critical response section since its attributed and not being used to support a claim. HowStuffWorks seems to be fine for "basic facts" only because it sometimes "oversimplifies things". Showbuzz Daily is widely used for viewing figures, it clearly lists its data sources and authors who have broad and extensive experience in the area. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement in the FA criteria is "high-quality reliable sources" (my emphasis), not simple reliability; sources that lack consensus on basic reliability are always going to be questioned. With that in mind, could you elaborate on why you feel these sources meet that higher bar? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure my answer would change much on the surface. In simplest terms I believe that they are high-quality reliable sources because they are reliable and widely used. Getting slightly more into specifics in my experience these sources aren't biased and as far as I'm aware have independent editorial oversight. On the other end sources like TFC oftentimes uses press releases from the networks but is used as a compliment to the other sources making them just as high-quality. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being widely used doesn't in itself make something reliable. Can you give more information about the editorial oversight in these sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best here just to provide a more in-detail analysis of the sources you mentioned and why I think that they are high-quality sources (as well as any editorial oversight):

• The Futon Critic: Often publishes press releases from networks, in these cases any editing resides at the network. When this information isn't available to the general public it can be used to verify information that resides in these releases. [4]
• Showbuzz Daily: Primarily used for viewing figure information. This information isn't usually released from Nielsen to the general public so other sources are frequently used for the information. The website clearly lists their authors, experience, credentials, and their sources on their website which provides transparency. [5].
• Showbiz Cheatsheet: Removed per other comments.
• US Weekly: Owned by A360media which discloses their editorial mission statement for US Weekly . [6]

• Have to say this statement doesn't provide much in the way of concrete reassurance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Have to say I don't think I've ever seen someone question the quality of a US Weekly source so much but I replaced the three of them that were used if that works for you? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pajiba: Also provides transparency by listing authors and editors, their experience, mailing addresses, etc. I feel that there's not as much to say here since its being used as a review source and not to verify information but I think what I said is a large part of what pushes the quality of this source. [7].

• The info provided there about the author in question doesn't support that the review is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced.... TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell-Tale TV: Removed per other comments.
• Jezebel: Again clearly lists their authors and editors along with contact information. Also, the website is owned by G/O Media which has an in-detail description of their editorial policy, information on sources, and a host of other information. [8] and [9].
• FanSided: Removed per other comments.
• HowStuffWorks: mainly relies on primary sources for their information, where primary sources aren't available they analyze secondary sources for quality. In writing they aim to eliminate personal biases. They also clearly list their authors and editors with credentials on their website, most of them holding at minimum a bachelors degree and having significant experience in their field. [10] and [11].

• It doesn't appear that the author cited here is listed there? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could be a former writer, freelance writer, not sure. Either way, its been replaced. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this provided more of the information that you were looking for? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass

I'll do the image review for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would remove "link1 = Ellen Pompeo" and "link2 = Patrick Dempsey". I've never seen these kind of links on pictures in articles, and with them I'm not sure how readers can access the licensing info about the pictures. As a reviewer, I had to go into the code, copy the file name, and search for each image manually. Also, the image of Gianniotti does not have such a link, so already there is inconsistency for images that do.
• Add periods to the captions of the images of Pompeo, Dempsey, and Gianniotti because they are full sentences. Otherwise the captions are good.
• I believe the non-infobox images should be configured as "thumb" per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size.
• The FUR on the infobox image seems fine. Moisejp (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Addressed 1, 2, and 4. I know that the image of Gianniotti is configured as thumb. Pompeo and Dempsey uses {{

  multiple images}} which as far as I was aware automatically configured as thumb? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Hi DoctorWho, OK, sounds good then. I looked at Template:Multiple_image and didn't see anything specific about automatically rendering the image as "thumb" but the size of the other two does seem to be approximately the same as the Gianniotti, so in any case, the image size seems to be reasonable. I'm satisfied. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

• "pandemic,[1][2] for the" why just the two citations in the lead? These could/should be moved to the main part of the article where these matters are revisited in more detail.
• "the lowest of any" the fewest of any
• "the transfer of" isn't "transmission" a more apt word?
• If Anthony Hill is a "star" of Grey's Anatomy, is he not notable enough for an article?
• "the COVID-19 pandemic" could link to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States?
• "James Pickens, Jr. " we don't put commas in these kinds of names any longer.
• "Original air date [4]" no space before reference. I know this is probably a template issue but it needs to be fixed.
• "the COVID-19 pandemic, the doctors" this should also link to the US article.
• "find themselves in uncharted territory as they work to save lives without any end in sight" this is lacking in encyclopedic tone and reads like the back of a DVD.
• "continue dying from" continue to die.
• "for his mania" which is?
• "gets his stress relieved by him" clumsy writing.
• "Bailey's mom", "her mom" etc mother.
• "a COVID room" a treatment room?
• "a run for their money " tone issues again.
• Two notable guests don't have articles. What is the inclusion criteria for this set of "notable" individuals?

That takes me to production. Ping me when we're good to continue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed nearly everything you mentioned. From what I can gather this series, and more specifically this season, is Hill's first "starring" role. Just from a quick look at his IMDb page everything before this appears to just be minor guest roles dating back to only about 2011. With this so far one off starring role this is probably why he doesn't have his own article. I left a message at Template talk:Episode table leaving a message about the space, I'm not knowledgeable in Lua modules to fix it myself, but even if I was this specific template is protected. I'll monitor that discussion and can keep you updated on any developments

I'm gonna go ahead and address the entirety of the guest list just in case anyone else has questions about what makes them notable. A number of them are made of former starring cast members (Knight, Dane, Leigh, and Drew), a number of them are starring cast members on spin-off series Station 19 (Doss, Hayden, Damon, Savre, and Onaodowan), family members of cast/crew members (Rashad), guest stars who have appeared in multiple seasons (not necessarily recurring in any singular season but who could be considered recurring when looking at the series as a whole) (Faison, Taylor, Saum, Armstrong, Roberts, Mooney). Looking at Boulware and Ames, the two without articles that you mentioned, they don't actually appear to meet any of these categories. I didn't actually create the list but if I had to guess someone added them because their characters are family members of main characters. As far as I can remember I don't think either of these character impacted the storyline in any significant way, even that though wouldn't prove notability. I'll go ahead and remove the two of them unless someone else can provide a source that proves any notability. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:REFPUNCT. You can read a more in-detail response there. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Just refs to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Everything has been addressed. I believe that the "since conditions were uncertain" was necessary because it explained why the episode count wasn't locked in place; in my experience, once an episode count is given they don't change for no reason, if a series is popular additional episodes might be ordered or a writers strike may cause less episodes to be produced, I felt the explanation added in context. It was however, uncertain because of COVID, and I attached that reason to the end. Thanks for catching the "over $575,000", the first article I read about her contract stated "north of $550,000" so I believe that I had "over $550,000" written, later finding a source which explicitly gave the number 575, so I updated that but forgot to remove the "over". I slightly adjusted the statement about recurring to read "continued to make recurring appearances" only because I felt is was important to point out that the actor did continue to make appearances despite becoming a series regular in the spin-off. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• From previous sections, "that Jesse Williams, who " that's a dab link.
• "pm ET.[120][8] The" ref order.
• Ref 2, both hyphens should be en-dash.
• Ref 41, SHOUTING.
• Ref 93, Sun-Times is hyphenated.
• Ref 147, age range needs en-dash.
• Ref 149, same.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All taken care of. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy with the changes made in response to my concerns. Good work, support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

References: Could the titles of articles be in - a consistent - title case please. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"articles"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe @Gog the Mild: was referring to the fact that a lot of the references didn't use a similar title case (some only capitalized the first word and proper nouns, others capitalized every word, others used a standard title case of capitalizing most but leaving the standard "a, an, the, in, by", etc. lowercase). It's just a result of copying and pasting the title off the website and each website having their own standard. I've attempted to make it more uniform ([12]), but I will admit my eyes started getting a bit blurry halfway through. Hopefully its better than it originally was though. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It it, but not quite there yet. Eg, "Another Beloved Character Makes A Return to the Beach", there are others. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I fixed the one that you mentioned, and made another pass over finding a few more, actually found a few duplicate refs as well and fixed those. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Cnrl-F search for "title=" and found about 40% of a sample needed correcting. Have a look at this diff [13] and see if you can do the same for the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for the delay, had a few midterms over the last two weeks. I should be able to get back to this tomorrow. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I do need to ask, are there specific Wikipedia guidelines that you're following on which words to capitalize and which to leave lowercase? One of the edits I made involved capitalizing the word "is" in most uses but in the edit you made was that you decapitalized that word. Per this, the word should be capitalized. Same with they, be, it (especially since this one is capitalized in references to the episode within prose), and in. Are all of these counting towards the 40% that you mentioined? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pay too much attention to that number. The rules are at

MOS:5LETTER. If you are happy that they are met, ping me. (I suspect that I didn't stick to these when I was copy editing. If so, apologies.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Got it, thank you, I'll take a look at that tomorrow. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Alright, I went through yesterday and once more today, I found quite a few more and fixed them. How does it look now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with the reference formatting changes here? If so, I will go ahead and promote this. Hog Farm _Talk 13:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 14:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]