Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)

This show does not use a single-camera setup

The main page incorrectly states that Arrested Development uses a single-camera setup. In fact, the show uses a multiple-camera setup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.235.140 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it uses a single-camera setup (as evident by its Emmy nomination for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing). Single-camera setups can use additional cameras and still technically be "single-camera" (Arrested uses 2 usually, although 3 were used in the pilot episode, according to the commentary on the first disc of season 1.). Check out the pages for single-camera and multi-camera setups for a better explanation 129.133.206.180 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite the name, "single-camera setup" often utilizes 2, 3, or more cameras. Pagen HD (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no movie.

The movie is not happening. If you want Wikipeia to be inaccurate, fine, but you make the site look stupid. Using 6 month old "references" as your source is absurd. There is NO credible sources to the statements that are currently on the Arrested Development page rearding the movie. Off the cuff remarks from former cast members who have ADMITTED in the past to purposely lying about hte movie is all you have. And the movie is not in ANY state. No script being written, etc. So to put on the page that it will be filming in 2010 is absurd.

Wikipedia should not be a place for pathetic fanboys to vent and live in a fantasy world delusion. It should be about facts, and the FACT is, there will never be an Arrested Development movie. the ONLY hope it had was if Michael Cera's career hadn' comee crashing to a halt in 2009, but it did. His name on the marquee now means box office bust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.123.4 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit, it does seem like parts of the article are a little more optimistics than some of the sources, but to say that there definitely won't be a movie seems to be even more wrong. A number of reliable sources claim there is still the possibility for it. But for right now, reliable sources from this year out-rank your personal opinion here on wikipedia, unless you'd like to provide some sources of your own. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a movie .. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901469/ .. http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/07/16/will-arnett-mitch-hurwitz-confirm-arrested-development-movie-gq/. I mean this is the internet, we do have information available. Cant people uses keyword searches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.30.126 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you, judging from your link and the original guy's post, I don't think the source you just posted existed yet at the time of his post. Regardless, he's just being overly negative about the movie ever coming out. Reliable sources trump his person opinion, so it doesn't really matter. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking about RS is just making fools, the cast are taking the piss, it's an in joke....that they've made it in newspapers doesn't make it any less bullshit. 92.21.200.78 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

what the heck is 'taking the piss'? is that some sort of English 'Chavie' slang, please refrain from provinchial slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.226.66 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you have sourcing to back up your claims, then? Doniago (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking me to prove a negative? It's been 6 years....how long does that section stay there, saying 'the movies coming...script is being written'? I know scripts can be slow, but it's been 'half done' since '07....not that anyone has seen it, or knows anything about it, or any funding has been secured....or the actors aren't getting too old for the roles they had...

That's a serious question btw, how long does that section continue to exist in the event that a film continues not to be made?92.21.195.147 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say it stays there at least until there is reliably sourced information to indicate that a movie will not be made. How many years was it until a sequel to TRON was released? There's no deadline here...how is the article harmed by including this information? Doniago (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An article is obviously harmed by including inaccurate information...while the 'they said this and this and this about a movie' is technically true, you know what I mean. TRON is a freaky exception...this isn't a sequel in the die hard 4/rambo 9 kinda way, this is a tv show that wanted to become a movie....I think damn near everyone in tv would like to make a movie, but it's not a realistic assumption that they'll succeed. I don't think waiting for a 'cancelled' source is going to work....the movie only exists as (at most, and IMO probably not even) a half written script...there's no way in which it could be cancelled, assuming writer guy doesn't come out and say 'I've changed my mind I don't want to make a movie'....which doesn't seem likely, it's very possible that there will never be a source...again, it's the proving negative thing. Perhaps a suitable solution would be to trim down the section to the most authoritative& recent statements, and put it in past tense. 92.21.195.147 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

The critical reception section needs some work. First, it mostly consists entirely of quotes and does not follow WP:QUOTE. Second, it only mentions positive reviews, which makes the implication that no critics ever had anything negative to say about the show, which I'm sure is not true. While it is clear that there have been mostly positive reviews, some negative or neutral ones need to be included to adhere to WP:NPOV. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If the response is overwhelmingly positive you don't need to go searching for negative reviews to 'balance' it. 92.21.200.78 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

sources

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/feb/12/arrested-development-mitch-hurwitz-sitcom-cancelled (This is written by Hurwitz, despite being the Guardian) — Fourthords | =/\= | 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

tracy's cause of death

Michael's late wife is at least implied to have died of ovarian cancer. In S3ep7 ("Prison Break In"), there is a flashback to the TBA debacle, with the Bluths discussing what cause to promote with their fundraiser. George Sr. reads the submitted causes, including ovarian cancer, after which he says, "Gee, I wonder who that was" (for episode transcript, see <http://the-op.com/transcript/307>). I believe that it is inaccurate for the article to say "His wife, Tracy, died, though the cause of death is never given" (in lead paragraph of "Characters" section). If no one objects, I will edit the article to reflect this in a week or two. --Nbc7 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a definitive statement... Doniago (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fourth season

Mitch Hurwitz said at the New Yorker Fest that they will do a fourth season. I don't do wikipedia edits due to wiki-nazi's. So one of you go find that info and add it.

• Incoming sources:

• http://i.imgur.com/Eua8M.png
• https://twitter.com/#!/ditzkoff/status/120599071613403137
• https://twitter.com/#!/NewYorker/status/120599846745931777

Wow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Expectations should probably be managed in terms of this potential fourth season. New additions to the article in regards of this should be written as there is plans for another season, not that it will happen and that's been confirmed the series will return. It's one thing for the creator to say he's doing it, it's another thing for it to actually come to fruition. There's still tons of behind-the-scenes and production things to happen first. Hopefully some of the other editors for this article will agree. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Close as fail. No edits, no response. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

• Article is stable, there are no edit wars. However, while looking at the history I noted that the article hasn't changed much since Oct 2009 when it was demoted from FA status due to sourcing concerns. Those concerns have not been addressed which is not encouraging. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Captions are appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Prose. There are occasional moments where the text could be clearer, but on the whole the prose is clear and readable - at time engaging and informative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• MoS - apart from Lead. The layout, etc are appropriate. The list of Notable guests would fall under Long sequences, which is an appropriate use of a list. Though the content of that list will fall foul of 3B - "Focused", as the encyclopaedic value of the contents is questionable. Added to which the list is entirely unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Coverage is broad and detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Query

• Images. There are three non-free images used in the article. The policy is for "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". I think that the images are being used for different reasons, and there are rationales on two, but File:Arresteddevelopmentsnoopy.gif does not have a specific rationale. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• There are Original Research concerns because there are theories and opinions being given which are not supported by reliable sources - instead the reader is expected to concur with the opinion by viewing the episodes themselves. An example is - "The show is highly intertextual (referring to other shows) and reflexive (self-referential)" - for which the reader is given a link to a Wikipedia article on an episode. Reliable sources should be used to support these statements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. There is nothing on the show's development, characters, plot, episodes, themes, response, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sourcing is a serious issue. The article was demoted from FA status because of inadequate sourcing, and the sourcing has not improved since then. At times the article uses Wikipedia articles on individual episodes as sources, which is against policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Focus. There is excessive detail in places. The list of Notable guests is long and unexplained. There is a lot of plot detail which should be trimmed to a managable summary. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold

There is a solid article here. The writing is good, and there is a lot of information. However, it doesn't meet GA criteria. This is mainly due to an excessive amount of unnecessary detail in places, that the lead doesn't provide an adequate summary of the quite extensive contents, and that much material remains unsourced. I think it would be possible to bring the article up to scratch, though it would require some dedicated effort. Putting on hold for an initial 7 seven days to see what the nominator wishes to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominator reminded that seven days is almost up and no work has been done, and no contact made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fail

There's been no response, no edits, no communication. The article has a number of issues. The sourcing issues need to be addressed before this article is renominated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)