Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Wire (TV series)

The Wire (TV series)

Over the past month, Opark 77, East718 and myself have been working towards improving this article. We have drawn a lot from every featured article on a TV series (especially Arrested Development and The West Wing), and used standards of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television as a guide. There was a peer review that produced several suggestions, archived here. Note on article size: The text itself is just under 40kb, not counting the references section. It looks a bit larger (57kb) in edit view because of the amount of markup. Andrew Levine 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. Andrew Levine 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Opark 77 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Well-written, comprehensive without being crufty, exhaustively sourced. Stilgar135 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Stilgar135. east .718 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why does Image:Season02 posterart.jpg have such strange fair use rationale? It ranges from the silly (8. See number 5.) to the irrelevant (7. It is used in an article.) to the bizarre (10. Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Pagra shtak 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea. Was someone trying to make a joke, or did they think they needed an even ten justifications? In any event, I have fixed it to something more reasonable. Andrew Levine 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also tried to tidy this up a little and added the recommended introductory line from the fair use guidelines.--Opark 77 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The article is a fine example for other television articles. Sfufan2005 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the TOC looks ugly right aligned.--Peta 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did that, and to me the right-floating TOC looks better a screen of text that consists only of the TOC. To me, it noticeably constrains the text on the left at 640x480. east .718 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it right aligned as well, it is quite large (although we have tried to reduce it's size) and disrupts the flow of the article in the standard position. If many editors feel that having it right aligned is a problem I'm sure we can move it.--Opark 77 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you shortened the cast list in the infobox or used colums for the cast, then a standard left aligned TOC would look fine - the only reason it looks a bit funky now is the excesive length of the infobox.--Peta 04:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikiproject television guideline is to list the starring cast in the infobox - everyone in the opening credits. The inofbox currently contains only the current starring cast so it would be hard to decide who to remove in order to shorten it. The infobox is long but I disagree that it is excessively long - it follows the wikiproject television standard. I am unaware of how to format things in infoboxes into columns, if someone could provide a link to somewhere that explains how I would be grateful. I notice that other featured television articles for The West Wing and Arrested Development do not have the information about the opening and closing themes that we do. Perhaps this could be removed if the infobox needs to be shortened as it is covered in the music section (although the same is true of the cast list).--Opark 77 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article gives an in-depth background and rationale for the series, and uses inline references.Cas Liber 08:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never seen the program, but a quick glance makes me want to support the article. I think the right hand TOC is a bit unusual, but certainly not a bad thing.Terri G 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Object~~ Support The alignment of the TOC needs to correspond with other wiki articles. Not only does the alignment not match with most of wikipedia it makes the top of the page far too crowded and ugly. The other issues I have are minor. This is more of a recomendation then a rerquest for fix. I don't think themes needs to be subsectioned. You can easily and better describe the show's themes all together without each theme having its own section. Also, later on you reuse wikilinks too much, especially in the Production sections. I understand reusing them in Season descriptions (it would look to ugly otherwsie), but items like The Baltimore Sun only need to be linked once. Besides these tiny issues, its a great article. Medvedenko 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style says that a specific term only needs to be wikilinked in each section once. It can be linked twice if it's in two separate sections far apart on the page, since we don't want people to have to scroll up half the page to get to the Sun article. As for the themes, I tried them without the subsections but never saved it as an edit because it looked too rambling. Try removing the subection headers and hitting Preview, you'll see what I mean. Andrew Levine 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick check for repeated links and removed several that were repeated within sections but have kept those that are repeated across different sections. We have discussed removing the subsections in themes but opted to keep them because removing the headers would neccessitate improving the flow. This would only lengthen the article further. If the sections are inappropriate would it be preferable to have a longer article to improve flow? Could I ask you to clarify your thoughts on the TOC Medvedenko, do you mean the TOC should be left in the position straight after the lead (neither right or left aligned)?--Opark 77 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Section#Floating the TOC gives guidelines on floating the TOC and having read them I don't think we really warrant a floated TOC in this article. At least it should definitely be after the lead section as per wikipedia:accessibility #Article structure. I'll leave it to East to change it as I know he is fond of it.--Opark 77 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually having gone to leave him a message on his talk page I notice he is taking a break from editing so I'll do it!--Opark 77 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it violates any of the guidelines at WP:TOC#Floating the TOC, but I'm not going to oppose the change. In fact, I think having a normal TOC breaks the flow of the article by having a dearth of text in between the lead and the first section.

What are your thoughts on a {{TOCleft}} before the Origins header? east .718 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the TOC on the right I felt was it was too distracting. When you first see an article you usually have to focus only on two things, the lead and a picture. The list of section was way to distracting, and I'm thrilled its changed. I felt only several repeated links were not needed and Opark 77 handled it well. I do not feel the Themes section would ramble if several minor changes were done to connect the paragraphs. I think it would be much easier to read this way, but as it is doesn't bring down the article. Glad to support. Medvedenko 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support With the recent changes this is now a very good article. I believe it is now ready to be a featured article. It should be noted however that my opinion is biased. I made some (minor) contributions to the article and it is one of my favorite shows.JeffStickney 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]