Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One of the Boys (1989 TV series)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2021 [1].

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An American primetime television series from 1989 with no article until March 2021?! That's the case with

• There's a ref error: "Snyder 1989. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks for catching that, Heartfox (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

I now offer my support, and the image review passes as well. Very good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SNUGGUMS: I have added an additional image to the article and would like to inform you as you previously conducted an image review. Heartfox (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the FUR for File:One of the Boys 1989 cast.png is A-OK. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

I have been waiting for you to nominate something. Given the great quality of your source reviews, I doubt a lot of work will be required but I will give it a look later.--NØ 05:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "a motorcycle-riding Venezuelan immigrant to the United States pursuing the American Dream by leaving her job as a waitress and becoming a bookkeeper at the Lukowski Construction Company" -- The way this is worded seems to place more emphasis on her riding motorcycles than her professions. Is it that notable a characteristic of this character?--NØ 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed; it's not notable. Heartfox (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi @MaranoFan: congrats on AATB! I was just wondering if you had any additional comments for this article. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I am not that familiar with these type of articles, so I randomly read the FAs Kampung Boy (TV series) and House (TV series) as examples. I may use them as a reference for the review.

• I don't think just saying it is an "American sitcom" gets enough information across in the opening sentence. Is it possible to use a descriptive word between them, like "American romance sitcom" or something else?
  • Genres require sources and to my knowledge there were none that specified it further.
• Is there a reason the character and actress have similar names?
  • There were no sources that acknowledged the similarity of their names.
• "who gets hired to work in the office of a small construction company" -- Shouldn't this be active voice? "who begins working in the office of a small construction company"
  • Changed.
• "quickly marries its widowed owner" -- Not sure "quickly" does much to enhance the reader's understanding here.
  • Removed.
• "Numerous production companies oversaw filming" -- If there's just five, can't they be named?
  • Five production companies is a massive number for any TV show, particularly one that lasted six episodes. Are you sure it wouldn't be excessive to list all of them for a one-paragraph lead? I did change "numerous" to "five", though.
• The lead mentions what the reviews referred to, but does not say whether they were favorable or negative.
  • There were no retrospective/all-encompassing sources that described the reviews either way.
• I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead section. The sentence "It was one of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s." is the best and most attention-grabbing part. Can that be moved up and made the second sentence?
  • Done.
• "Her best friend Bernice DeSalvo (Amy Aquino) works as a waitress" -- Does she only work as a waitress at Mike and Maria's wedding or all the time? This sentence appears kind of abruptly.
  • I tried reorganizing the paragraph but I really don't know where else to put it to be honest, so I reformatted the section it into a list which more closely aligns with
    MOS:TVCAST
    idk. This is back in paragraph form, with the sentence written differently.
• There's another sentence that mentions things happening "quickly", but isn't this automatically implied since the series had just six episodes?
  • Removed.
• Shouldn't the article structure be Background - Production - Premise instead of what it is now? I could be wrong, since I am not familiar with writing these type of articles!
  • It's supposed to be plot first but you're not supposed to have a plot section if there are episode summaries, so you're supposed to move the episode table first, but you can't because of the infobox, so cast and characters is next... the MOS a mess TBH but other TV FA's don't follow
    MOS:TV structure exactly (e.g., Abby
    , which is what I based this article on originally); every article is different. If you think it flows well that should be what matters.
• "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing on episodes" -- Change this to "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing in it".
  • Changed.
• "Scheuer stated she "earns laughs that aren't even in the script" -- What does this mean?
  • Paraphrased.

I don't doubt that you have done the best possible with the information available, but the article is still rather small. Critical commentary is limited and some structural issues hinder it from being a compelling and gripping read as of yet. I am regretfully leaning towards oppose.--NØ 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Thank you for your comments and reviewing something unfamiliar. I have responded above and done my best to address them. Heartfox (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article does look better after the changes made.

• Second and third lead sentences could stand to be merged a bit. "It was one of the only American primetime programs to star a Latin American woman—María Conchita Alonso—that decade. She features as Maria Conchita Navarro, a Venezuelan immigrant to the United States who begins working in the office of a small construction company and marries its widowed owner, Mike Lukowski (Robert Clohessy)." This is accomplishing two things, improving the flow a bit, and moving the repetition of the words "Maria Conchita" out of the same sentence.
  • Changed; thanks for the suggestion.
• I'm sure a little synthesis would be fine for the lead regarding critical commentary. It seems obvious from reading the paragraph that the comments directed toward the concept and script were negative whereas critics were more favorable to Alonso's acting.
  • SNUGGUMS offered their support because such synthesis was removed, so no.
• Considering the small size of the article, I would suggest moving the details with citations in the infobox to the Background section. I think cites in the infobox are generally discouraged and the prose could stand to gain a few more sentences.
  • Moved.
• "Alonso was initially averse to acting in television" -- Would "on television" sound better than "in television"?
  • Changed.
• The description for the sixth episode is small. Maybe use the episode itself as a reference to expand a bit?
  • The episode is only available at the UCLA Film and Television Archive in Los Angeles.
• Why do you say there are no sources describing the genre? I randomly opened this one and it clearly describes it as a "midseason replacement comedy".
  • I am confused as to what you are suggesting. "Midseason replacement" is not a genre and it is already described as a "sitcom" (situational comedy).
• The same article describes Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" character. I think this gives us valuable insight into the character and should be included, again, given the relatively small size of this article?
  • Added.
• The same Philadelphia Inquirer piece states Alonso had "many talk show visits with David Letterman and Johnny Carson". Why this is being used as a source for "there was little publicity for One of the Boys" is very confusing to me.
  • It is used to cite "She's scheduled to appear on Late Night with David Letterman on Thursday", which is paraphrased as "Aside from Alonso's appearance on Late Night with David Letterman". I unmerged the footnote. The other visits are in the past, not in 1989 promoting the show. I decided to remove the mention of her Late Night appearance.
• Another insightful quote from the very same article is completely omitted: "My character has class; she's had an education. She's not the often seen fruit-on-the-head, koochy-koochy type."
  • I have expanded the section with more details.
• "These six episodes were a trial run; One of the Boys would air a second season starting in September 1989 if it was well-received." -- The framing is a bit confusing. From what I understand, they did not go through with the second season. That should be more clear.
  • It is clear in the next paragraph? The sentence sets up what the result of the episodes is. It would air a second season if it was well-received, but in the next paragraph it is explained that it wasn't well-received. I moved this up.
• My concerns about the omission of important details stated in the sources are by no means exhaustive, as I just opened one article.

While I initially thought the coverage received was limited, it seems the article really could be expanded more using even just the sources already included in it. Episodes could be directly used as references to expand on the plot. A picture of the cast or this picture of Navarro could be added so there is some visual demonstration of the people involved. At the moment the article is barely establishing the series's notability, it does not constitute the prose standard that unfamiliar-with-the-topic people coming to it from being featured on the main page will find engaging. I am going to refrain from formally voting but some concerns with regards to criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, and 3, still remain. Regards.--NØ 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Thank you for your time reviewing the article and leaving further comments; I've responded above. Where do you suggest an image of Alonso be added? It would cause sandwiching issues next to the infobox and leaves a huge white space in the critical reception section because {{clear}} has to be used. There were no images of the full cast I came across. I would note the article has already passed an image review. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an image of the cast via the opening sequence. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, it has almost been a week and I was wondering if you would like to follow up on your comments/my responses/edits. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I have been busy with an internship I am pursuing currently. The addition of the cast's picture alone (seems to have) improved the article a lot, though I don't have the time to read it again. Will request the closing coord to ping me before archiving the discussion in case I have time then.--NØ 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:MaranoFan, pinging as requested. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am particularly happy about how the rewrite of the Cast and characters section was handled. Would also like to commend the author for seeking out so much print media about an old TV show and uploading the clippings to Newspapers.com themselves.--NØ 06:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion.

👨x🐱 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at ways to reorganize the sentence structure in these sections, but changes will inevitably be limited as there's not any new content that's going to be added.

@HumanxAnthro: Thank you for your comments. I have left some preliminary responses above and will edit the article in depth tomorrow. Heartfox (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I believe I have addressed your comments with recent edits to the article. Let me know what you think and thanks again for your time, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: It's been a week since you last left comments and I was wondering what you think of the article now. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good except for one thing. You can't have text between an image and an infobox per

MOS:SANDWICH. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@HumanxAnthro: I've moved it to the right using the stack template which I've seen on a few other articles. Is that okay? Heartfox (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Assuming "Los Angeles" in the Variety ref should include the state, like the other refs with locations; likewise with Miami, Detroit and Hollywood
• I don't really understand the consistency in using locations, is there a pattern/some kind of standardization here that I'm missing?
  • Locations are provided when it is not in the work name; states are given when the Wiki article for the location doesn't list it. Should they all give the state? I'm not really familiar.
    • Considering the locations aren't linked to their articles anyways (which is probably for the best), I would think including the state every time makes the most sense. I now understand your approach to including locations or not, but the one that was throwing me off is USA Today—which doesn't seem to satisfy your criteria on that matter. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added states. USA Today has a location when it has a dateline. ProQuest gives McLean, Virginia, as the location of the paper as a whole. Should I include that as well?
        • Our article on USA today does as well, so I would think, of consistency's sake, such an addition is appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Aza24: I've added them. Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• Top notch from what I can tell—and impressive given the subject matter

Verifiability

• I don't really understand "The Meeting" 1989 refs—where in the episode are we getting this information, the credits? Surely there are better sources, if so. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production information is from the opening and ending credits. However, because it is also used as a footnote for a plot summary I thought it would not make sense to list the credits as the info source so it's just the episode in general. Because most (but not all) was also listed in Leszczak, his book is cited as well.
    • Makes sense, but I'm wondering if that can be made clear in the ref; i.e. putting "(credits)" or something somewhere—if you see what I mean? Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks; this is my first time using sfn in an article so I didn't know about the loc= paramater. I've added them in the refs.

@Aza24: thanks so much for the source review. I'm open to addressing everything I just have some responses/questions above. Heartfox (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]