Talk:The Seinfeld Chronicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Seinfeld Chronicles has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the Seinfeld WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seinfeld-related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page and add your name to the members list.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

The quality scale guidelines say "Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered 'complete', although obviously edits will continue to be made." Having watched the episode, listened to Notes About Nothing, etc., I think the article is about as complete as can be (not that it can't be improved). I don't think every article can or should be long in order to be a good article. So why "start class"? What can be improved?  ~ InkQuill  01:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Superman Reference

I have added a sub-section underneath the plot for the reference to Superman. If any of you feel it should go somewhere else, feel free to move it.

I am going to try to add this section in to some of the other episode pages in the coming days.

WBredefeld 07:45 PST 29, March 2006

Woah! What's with all of the attention to detail in the plot section? It's fine, but I just didn't expect so much. Steveo2 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Seinfeld chronicles.JPG

Image:Seinfeld chronicles.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review: comments

A most enjoyable article, with just a few areas that need attention.

  • Lead. You might consider dropping the abbreviated plot summary in the lead. It could be replaced by a summary of the world-wide impact of the series that followed from the pilot.
  • In the first paragraph of the Production section you use the words “pilot” and “episode”. Are these the same thing? Later in the paragraph you use the term “show”. Is that also the same thing? As it stands this paragraph is a bit confusing to the reader – can you redraft or clarify it?
  • You need to explain “Neilsen” ratings to ill-informed Brits. I can guess what they are, but a footnote, or explanation in the text, is necessary
  • I’m not sure about the Cultural references section. Are these really “cultural” references? Their context is entirely within the Seinfeld series, and I would have thought that the section title required a rather wider spectrum. Perhaps expand the section – or re-title it?
  • Have you resolved the "fair use" problem? (A couple more images might improve the appearance of the article.)

I haven’t done a thorough punctuation or MoS trawl, but on the face it these are OK.

If you can attend to the above there’ll be no problem with GA

I have seen the various changes since the above was posted.
Lead: Fine now
Production: OK now. I've done a bit of tweaking in paragraph 1, to sort out a slight grammar problem & also to avoid some repetitions of "pilot" and "stand-up". I think it reads well now, but you'd better check that I haven't changed your meaning.
Neilsen: Fine, you've linked
Cultural References: I see you've changed the title. Shouldn't "Reference" be plural in the new title, as you give more than one example? I'm a bit disappointed you didn't extend this section, because at present it gives a rather weak ending to the article. Can I suggest a couple of ways in which you could beef it up? First, start it with a sentence such as: "The pilot was a reference point for various incidents and storylines in later episodes of Seinfeld". Then, extend the sentence about the main story arc in Series 4 by explaining that story. These are small points, but they will help in giving the article a final polish.
Images: You've added another picture. Again, its not a public domain or free-use image. I assume that in both cases you are relying on the indication on the image page which says that publication is authorised "on the English Language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the US by non-profit Wikimedia Foundation". Have you been able to confirm your right to publish?

We're nearly there, but I would especially like assurance on the last point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review summary

I am pleased to say that this article has passed GA. I have carried out a number of final tweaks on the text, to deal with issues of punctuation, grammar, repetitions, a few MoS points, and have added an explanatory phrase re the Betrayal episode, but these were minor matters.

In relation to the six GA criteria the review is summarised as follows:-

  • Well-written:The prose was adequate, and was improved by a little treatment. MoS violations fixed. PASS
  • References, sources: PASS
  • Broad coverage: PASS
  • Neutral: PASS
  • Stable: PASS
  • Images: I was satisfied by the editors that fair use rationales had been added. PASS

The article is now GA, so congratulations to the editors. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)