Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temperatures Rising/archive2

Temperatures Rising

Temperatures Rising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Temperatures Rising/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Temperatures Rising/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Temperatures Rising/archive3

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the American television sitcom Temperatures Rising which aired on the ABC network from 1972 to 1974. The series, which I think is very funny, has an interesting history in that it went through three different formats and cast line-ups during its two year run. I rewrote the article several months ago so that a more comprehensive history of the show is presented. I would now like to bring the article up to feature length status. This is my second attempt to do so. The initial attempt was unsuccessful due to a lack of support. So please help if you can by offering some suggestions on what I can do to improve it. Jimknut (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ɱ

While I agree with Nikkimaria and Ian Rose that articles should generally go through GA first, I'll make comments here. My first FAC was closed due to few comments and I'd hate to see it happen many more times.

They may be right but I'm someone who thinks along the lines of David O. Selznick: "There are only two kinds of class: First class and no class."

So I think with my Briarcliff articles, although I'm willing to take the steps along the way for them to reach such a class as FA. It makes the process easier.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Temperatures Rising.jpg should have a better description of the image and of the source, and the source link should be to here. The description page should also say who the copyright owner is, if that can be found.
  • I reworked this so that the fair use description reads like the second season photo. I do not know who the original publisher is.

I'm going to add back in the URL, that helps people find the image at its original source.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• commons:File:Cleavon Little Jayne Meadows Temperatures Rising 1972.JPG wasn't actually published, posting on Ebay or an image hosting site doesn't mean that it's published. This means that the PD-Pre1978 license doesn't apply. Perhaps try to find another.
  • This one was already being used in the article when I began the upgrades. Since it is in Wiki Commons I think it's safe to use, although I don't think it's as crucial to the article as the first and second season cast photos.

That won't pass any FA review anywhere. Try to find another license, otherwise it should be deleted. Just being on Commons doesn't mean anything.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• File:Temperatures Rising Second Season.jpg appears fine, although it should also state the copyright owner.--ɱ (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know who the current owner is. Quite frankly I think it's in the public domain.

Photos from around 1973 usually aren't, even with the details that you list on the image description page.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Other remarks

• There were a lot of odd spaces that I'm removing, and I added portals to this. I'll see what other changes I can make.--ɱ (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, did a few more things. The prose and style looks good, as does the formatting. I'm going to look at the references next.--ɱ (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You have three block quotations that should be put inside some template. There are a few options, perhaps the best lies at Template:Quote. I checked most of your references, but only the ones to web sources, there are quite a few print ones. Of the web references, they all appear well-cited and formatted; I doubt I can find problems with your references.--ɱ (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I had these in quote boxes but the person that peer reviewed the article said they look intrusive. Hence I took them out and added them into the main flow of the text. The bulk of my sources came from the Los Angeles Times. These actually can be accessed on-line for a fee or for free through the Los Angeles County Library system. I did the latter. Also, since the LA Times is a major newspaper, many public libraries will probably carry it on microfilm. (Furthermore, I copied the articles and saved them as files on my computer so anyone that really wants to do so can request me to email these to him or her.)

That quote template doesn't really remove the text from the rest of the prose like other quote templates. I also believe that quote templates are preferred in articles over the simple formatting in place right now.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Under the "Reviews" section, did the LA Times call it the "worse show" or the "worst show"?--ɱ (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Worst." I fixed it.

• After reading through the article, it's clear that the prose is very well written, there are abundant inline citations, appropriate wikilinks, etc. I don't think that the article should be split into two different shows, it's clear that it was one show that underwent recasting and a slight name variant. Splitting the article would just make readers' understanding of that poorer. As well, the article only has 12kb of readable prose, which is far below norms for splitting an article. I'll give my official support of this article once the above points are addressed.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, although the show has not been officially released on DVD there are episodes available from private collectors. A few have been posted on YouTube. In my opinion, one of the funniest is "Ellen's Flip Side" Take a look and have a laugh … or two … or three … (Nancy Fox is extremely cute and adorable).Jimknut (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add back the quote boxes. This show reminds me of one that aired around the same time, Fawlty Towers. That show's quite good, and is available on Netflix among other sites. Check it out if you can.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen Fawlty Towers. It is indeed a very funny show. Getting back to Temperatures Rising, however, I changed the first two quotes by putting them into boxes. The third I added into the main text. Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. I do think that Template:Quote might look better, and will have it more similar to how you had it before. An example of that (which I just put on) is at Edward W. Hooper.--ɱ (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reworked again using Template:Quote. It does look better. Jimknut (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(←) Okay, now after a thorough review of the article, I can give my full support of this becoming a Featured Article. Good job.--ɱ (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll actually stress this-very well done, it's all written and sourced very well. No complaints here; this well deserves to become a FA.--ɱ (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I think the article is meticulously written and properly referenced. There may be additional comments, but it looks great and should be promoted to FA.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Jimknut (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Contains everything I would expect to find in a featured article on a television show, clear, well written, broadly referenced. One tiny point: I don't think WP encourages the use of "The" at the start of section headings, though I can't find anything to that effect in the MoS. Perhaps you might consider saying just "First series" and "Second series". Tim riley talk 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I made the changes that you suggested. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I've made a minor tweak to one of the images, moving it from left to right. This is as per MoS, and also stops the bullet points appearing through the image. Nicely put together. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, the article does look better with the second season cast image on the right. Thanks for changing this and thanks for the support. Jimknut (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Have I missed the source review? Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I made some comments under 'Other Remarks'. I didn't really find any problems.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Message for ɱ: Thanks again for the support. Message for Graham Beards: Do you have any questions that I can answer? Jimknut (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• As mentioned in the last FAC, Find-a-Grave is really not a reliable source for biographical details, and in this particular case would seem to be supporting synthesis without context
  • The text with the Find-a-Grave citations has now been removed.
• Some print sources are missing page numbers
  • I have now added in page numbers if applicable. Some of the online links show the actual newspaper page. For those I have added the page number. Others, however (such as the obituaries) show only the text from the newspapers and do not list a page number. Therefore, no page numbers are listed for these citations.
• Generally the citation formatting is quite inconsistent. Similar sources should be similarly formatted.
  • I have made the formatting more consistent. Note that for the Los Angeles Times, which forms a large part of my citation I listed the location only with the earliest citation. This is per the advice of an earlier reviewer (for List of Temperatures Rising episodes). Further listing of the location seems redundant.
    • Actually, the formatting seems to have gotten worse, as a number of publication titles that should be italicized no longer are. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I've gone through them again. All newspaper titles are now in italics. I believe the citations are now formatted correctly.
• IMDb is also not a reliable source for biographical details, particularly not a Trivia section
  • I have removed this section. However, for what's worth, the item from IMDb's trivia section on actress Nancy Fox states that she won her role on Temperatures Rising after she was spotted by Elizabeth Montgomery whereas all the newspaper articles that I have found state that William Asher (Montgomery's husband at the time) was the one that first spotted Fox. This bit of information was added to IMDb after I submitted it to them. It was Nancy Fox herself that told me about Montgomery making the discovery.
    • Unfortunately though you can't cite your conversations with a subject either, so now this is unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • But as I said, the section has now been removed.
• MOS issues: long quotes should be blockquoted, don't need quote-initial ellipses, etc
  • There are only two long quotes in the document. I have now put them both into block quotes.
    • There are at least two long quotes that are not blockquoted, as well as other MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I have now placed these other two long quotes in blockquotes. There is also a long quote in footnote 9. I have left these in quotation marks simply because I think it looks better this way. As for the "other MOS issues" can you please be more specific as to what you are refering to?
• I think that the article would benefit from further copy-editing - I'm noticing some grammatical errors like "who had had scored" as well as general awkward phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I corrected the "had had" bit. Other than that I ran the entire article through a grammar and spelling check (on Microsoft Word) and found nothing else wrong. As for "awkward phrasing" what specific items are you referring to? Let me know and I will correct them. Jimknut (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It's best not to rely on automated systems - they miss things like "daytime soap opera Days of Our Lives She would later". You might find it helpful to seek out a Guild member or someone else who can provide another set of eyes on the writing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I have made further edits of the text plus I made a request to the Guild for a review.Jimknut (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(←) Comment: You should be aware that requests made at the GOCE Requests page often take over a month to copy-edit—though it might get done more quickly if you're lucky. Jimknut's request is currently (as of my timestamp) 36th out of 40. I recommend either withdrawing this nom or putting it {{on hold}} until the copy-edit request has been dealt with. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I read through the article and found very few mistakes, and none worse than minor spelling/arrangement corrections, certainly nothing worth stopping an FA review over. I know from experience that Nikkimaria always finds little issues and then recommends a full GOCE copyedit; I don't think that's necessary in this case.--ɱ (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the GOCE request. One of the Guild members, ATC, reviewed the article and made some corrections and also suggested several others. I have now made all the corrections that ATC suggested as well as those by Nikkimaria and other reviewers. Right now, with all of corrections made plus the support of four reviewers, I think the article is in excellent shape and quite worthy of FA consideration. Jimknut (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - the article needs copy editing. There are glitches, redundancies and ungrammatical constructions. A fresh pair of eyes is needed. Graham Beards (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Where do you see such errors? It's not helpful to simply state that there are some. Plus minor errors like the ones listed cannot possibly be significant enough to stop an article from reaching FA.--ɱ (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the errors, which I just corrected, had already been pointed out, and was said to be fixed. I also saw "series'" where the possessive was wrong. This sentence shows common issues "Despite some heavy promotion for the series' new concept the black comedy approach—especially with Paul Lynde—was apparently not what audiences wanted to see and the ratings fell well below the levels of the previous season". Too much is trying to put across in one sentence. And this is a mess "Reputedly, Asher and Screen Gems had a contract stipulation with the network to cancel Bewitched a year earlier than contracts stipulated, thereby allowing him the opportunity to develop the two new series." We see "contract stipulation" and "contracts stipulated" and a general muddling of logical flow. To find such problems at this late stage is disappointing. As I said, a fresh pair of eyes is needed. I suggest recruiting a competent copy editor. Graham Beards (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reworked the two sentences mentioned. Plus, I've had one copy editor from the Guild look at the article. What other suggestions can you make to improve it? Jimknut (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a thorough copy edit from top to bottom. This is the first sentence of the lead "Temperatures Rising (also known as The New Temperatures Rising Show) is an American television sitcom that ran on the ABC network from September 12, 1972 to August 29, 1974, during which time it was presented in three different formats and cast line-ups with a total of 46 episodes." Spot the redundancies. The prospects for promotion at this stage are not looking good. Graham Beards (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have contacted two friends (Randy Skretvedt and Frank Thompson) and asked them to look at the article and offer some suggestions. Both are published authors although neither is a Wikipedia contributor. At present time I'm awaiting their answers. Meanwhile, I'm at a loss to see what you consider redundant in that first sentence. Maybe I'm interpreting you incorrectly, but the impression I'm getting is that your comments are more condescending than constructive. The idea for all this (so I thought) is to help built up the article so it is worthy of FA status, not tear it down (especially with silly little guessing games - i.e. "Spot the redundancies") so that it not worthy of the FA promotion. Jimknut (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Following this, I can say I agree with all of the above thoughts, on the condescending manner, guessing game, and more, and I don't spot any problems whatsoever with the lead sentence. And though I am neither of those two consulted individuals, I too have had my fair share in publications. The article's English is fine, even if it doesn't match your English.--ɱ (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My friend Frank Thompson read the article and said: "I'm not sure why anybody would have come down hard on this article. I think it reads just fine. It's clearly written and all the information is there in an orderly way. My only quibble is that you do have a slight tendency to write really long sentences and I think some of them (in the first paragraph, for example) could use some paring down. Just a matter of making a couple of separate sentences out of the long ones. But otherwise I think it's good. I don't know what problems the others have but I don't see 'em." I followed his advice and did indeed pare down some of the long sentences. BTW, check out Frank's web page if you have a chance. Perhaps this isn't the place to give a plug for a friend but, then again, Wikipedia is a learning place and Frank's books can be of used as source material for Wiki articles. Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with him regarding the overly long sentences. There are other issues, here are some examples:

• "Also" is used about 20 times, 17 occurrences are probably redundant.
  • I reduced the number of times "also" is used in this article to six. One I cannot remove because it's part of the infobox template. Another is part of a quote. The remaining four I think are appropriate.
• Having to resort to "a total of" before a number is often a sign of lurking redundancy.
  • Maybe so but I left this in place because I think it is all right. The "total of" part of the sentence is preceded by the statement that the series went through three different formats and cast line-up. So "total of" relates to the combination of those three.
• Is "with" the right word here "It returned in July with yet another format"?
  • I changed this to "it returned in July in yet another format."
• "Little also remained in the cast while a new line-up of supporting players consisted of Alice Ghostley, Barbara Rucker, and (returning from the first season cast)" do we need "while" ? How about just "and"?
  • Changed to "Little remained in the cast and a new line-up of supporting players…"
• There were problems with hyphens and dashes, which I have fixed.
  • Thank you for the fixes.
• "him being" should be "his being" - there are two of these errors.
  • Fixed.
• There are other occurrences of "while", which are questionable.
  • The use of "while" in the text has been reduced to two: 1) "Subsequent episodes featured Noland performing a secret operation on a young baseball player while Campanelli deals with a hospital inspector" and 2) "Maude did much better than Temperatures Rising in the New York area while Temperatures Rising fared better than Maude in the Los Angeles area." I think both are fine.
• No source is a given after the long quote from Asher.
  • Source now added.
• The use of "dealt with" here sounds amateurish, "It dealt with Noland broadcasting a bingo game in code over the hospital's public-address system."
  • Changed to: "It features Noland broadcasting a bingo game in code over the hospital's public-address system."
• As does "had" here "Another episode had Noland hypnotizing a patient."
  • Changed to: "Another episode features Noland hypnotizing a patient"
• This, "an act which nearly costs the hospital a large donation from a potential benefactor" needs to be recast; the donation would have been lost presumably?
  • I left this is it is as I think it's fine. My text is derived in part from the description of the episode in TV Guide: "Noland accidentally hypnotizes a nurse while trying to calm a patient and almost costs the hospital a large donation."
    • This is probably too close to the source for FAs. See WP:PARAPHRASE. I don't think we have had a source check for close paraphrasing. Any similar examples might cause problems. Graham Beards (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Here is a good example of an overlong sentence (snakes), which needs cutting up. "Jack Albertson returned in his role as a senator in a later episode dealing with Dr. Campanelli participating in a documentary film about hospital surgery, only to have Campanelli develop stage fright, therefore requiring Noland to take over the operation and thus receive all the acclaim." These is also a grammatical error, it should read "dealing with Dr. Campanelli's participating..." and there is another use of the poorly written dealt/dealing construction.
  • This has been reworded and now appears as three sentences. Jimknut (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No one said that this was not a good article. It's just that the prose is not up to FA level. Graham Beards (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PS. There are two citation errors:

62. Tubor 1989, pp. 203–204 Harv error: link from #CITEREFTubor1989 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

99. Tubor 1989, p. 205 Harv error: link from #CITEREFTubor1989 doesn't point to any citation. Graham Beards (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This nomination has been running for a long time. But the prose is still not up to FA standards, and is not engaging. It reads more like a list than an article. I suggest withdrawing from FAC and nominating for GA after a fresh pair of eyes has gone through it. It can be brought back to FAC when it is ready. It is not worthy of the Main Page as it stands. Graham Beards (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham Beards, for all the above points. As for the article is not being up to FA standards and not being engaging, well, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. I respect your opinion but, at the same time, I respectfully disagree. There are others who may think it is engaging and up to FA standards; notably the four reviewers who have already offered their support. As for your claim that it "reads more like a list than an article", I think that is ridiculous. Regarding the need of a "fresh pair of eyes" I've had a three people read through the article. One is a Wikipedia editor (ATC) and the other two are the above mentioned Frank Thompson and the filmmaker Hugh Munro Neely. These latter two gentlemen are both highly distinguished scholars and have the utmost respect for their opinion. Bottom line: I still think this article has FA potential and I am not withdrawing it.Jimknut (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It reads like a list because there is no Production section – this is usually where the interesting stuff is– and because of all those bulleted lists of actors . Graham Beards (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I also have an interest in the production of a series. Perhaps the actor information could also be reformatted. Also Graham, this article is just like my Briarcliff article in that it's written by one person. In such a situation, it seems that the FA reviews are almost always longer than with an article that was collaboratively written. The fact that Edmontosaurus was written by a large number of people meant that its FA involved no small fixes and was able to pass easily. It's tougher with Briarcliff and Temperatures Rising, because the FA reviewers are among the first outsiders to really dig to find those errors, even if both me and Jim have had many reviewers in the past. So that's largely just the nature of things: articles written by one person should expect to go through a longer FA process that hits some areas that editors would normally call 'basic fixes', things that the writers simply overlooked or didn't mind.--ɱ (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is often true for a first nomination. Although not a requirement, taking the article through GAN first would be helpful. Graham Beards (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lamentably, there are no books or websites about Temperatures Rising, nor is the series available on DVD. Hence I have no information about filming schedules, writers, directors (other than William Asher), photographers, set designers, etc. If I did I would put it into the article. I wish I did have a large number of people helping me on the it. Jimknut (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note -- This has been going on a long time. Several experienced reviewers have given it the thumbs up, and two others the opposite. I left it open in hopes the remaining points would be addressed to everyone's satisfaction but based on the above we still don't have consensus to promote. Just to be clear, Nikki and Graham, do I take it your concerns remain? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, they do. The prose is still unprofessional in parts, for example: "Another episode had Nolan create a mythical patient and then have him die and blame his death on the lack of cardiac crash carts on all the floors of the hospital". And although I understand the problem of obtaining sources for a Production section, the article is incomplete without one. Graham Beards (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, apologies all for not returning sooner after my last comment -- clearly we still do not have consensus to promote so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)