Talk:Friends/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I really like that this long article uses only two non-free images (if I counted right; their FUR checks out). The prose, especially in the first quarter of the article, is also pretty good. There are no obvious issues with neutrality, stability, and all the other points of WP:WIAGA, but I can only tell for certain once I've finished reading the article (it's quite long, so I'll split the review into several days). In the meantime, I'll leave a nitpicky list below, which at times lists things that need to be fixed, and at other times just constitute improvement suggestions (use your common sense). This is the first time I read about Friends behind-the scenes information (i.e. my brain can only take so much new information), and I apologize in advance for any stupidity or scroll-laziness. Impoliteness is also not intended.

Lead:

Done

  • "Filming for the series took place at Warner Bros. Studios" - links to Warner Bros., but it's still not clear where the studios are located
  • "most watched series finale in TV history" -> "most-watched series finale in TV history

Not sure

  • "and the Central Perk coffee house..." - this location is never mentioned before, and its relevance is unclear for the Friends newbie

Cast and characters:

Done

  • "Crane noted, "no one had done a true ensemble"," - can be paraphrased, and Crane's full name and his job title should be repeated for those readers (like me) who are piss-poor at remembering names that were only mentioned once before
  • "In their original contracts for the first two seasons, each main cast member was paid $1,600 per episode. In 1996,... " - so 1996 would be what season?
  • "the "Mother Hen" of the group" - this needs attribution, or should be replaced with a more general and less cutesy description
  • It would really help the reader to know when (i.e. which season) something happens, like for example "marries longtime friend Chandler Bing" and "develops a crush on his friend Rachel", just for relative importance.

Not done/sure

  • It's weird to read about the main cast when it's just a nameless crowd. If you don't feel strongly about the layout of this section, I suggest to swap the character list and the two prose paragraphs.
    • I'll think about it. Do you think it would be better to swap the cast and synopsis sections? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think in articles on long-running TV series, it doesn't matter if the cast or the synopsis section goes first, as the characters and actors define the ongoing plot, and the plot defines the characters. But I meant it would help to know the names of the characters and the actors before e.g. learning about their salary. – sgeureka t•c 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The change brought up new issues for me to nitpick, but I am unable to sufficiently articulate these issues or fix them myself quickly. To be fair, I take this issue out of GAN and leave it for another time to be fixed to everyone's satisfaction. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I like the current balance, so strike. – sgeureka t•c 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in an "on-again, off-again" relationship" - is there no better term for "on-again, off-again"?

Season synopses:

Done

  • "Ross struggles to tell Rachel that he loves her, while his estranged lesbian wife is pregnant with his baby. Joey is shown to be a struggling actor,"
  • "Joey gets a part in a fictionalized version of the soap opera Days of our Lives, but is killed off" - Joey isn't killed off, just his character
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, "English" and "London" are common enough to not need to be linked
  • "They decide to get married on a trip to Las Vegas, but decide not" - awkward grammar, maybe replace one "decide" with "plan" or "but change their plans"
  • "and they divorce" - does it really happen in the season 6 premiere?
  • "Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E" -> Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E (twice)
  • "The eighth season's first three episodes follow a "Who's the father?" format." - what are the dad options?
    • So the other non-Ross option is an unimportant character? (Just out of interest; I don't remember. If the other character is unimportant or unknown, I guess he doesn't need to be mentioned.)
      • As I remember (which I don't really), there was no other real option. There was that other sweater guy, Tag(?), but I don't think there was much about him. The main mystery was around the fact that Rachel wanted to tell the father first, which she took three episodes to do. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however she does not feel the same" -> "but she does not feel the same"
  • why have an image of Christina Applegate when the article never refers to her?
    • Just thought the section could use a picture. I'll try find a more appropriate one, because I don' think she warrants a mention in the text. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Paul Rudd. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The caption "said his recurring role was a surprise" does not really explain in what regard it was a surprise. This part of the caption could also just be removed. – sgeureka t•c 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure

  • "Rachel begins working at Bloomingdales" - what is Bloomingdales?
    • Already linked above. Is that okay? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had missed the above link, but I meant that it's not apparant for a European what Bloomingdale's is - a car workshop, a pharmacy,... . A short note that it's an upscale department store chain would be self-explanatory about Bloomingdale's and what kind of person Rachel is. – sgeureka t•c 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conception:

Done

  • I'd move the true conception info ("The idea for the series was conceived ... at the time") before the sentence "The team titled the series Insomnia Cafe, and pitched the idea as a seven-page treatment to NBC in December 1993" for chronology.
  • "This meant that the group shared ..." - rework that whole sentence and maybe merge with the surrounding sentences. It doesn't flow at all, and I had to read it several times to understand what it meant. (Plus, there is a missing article or a missing -s in the sentence)
  • "Littlefield found difficulty in bring the concept to life" - grammar

Casting:

Done

  • "The casting director shortlisted 1,000 actors who had replied for each role down to 75, who were called in to read before her." - sentence is difficult to understand because there is no comma before "down to 75" (although I think no comma belongs there) and because of the two "who"s.
  • "At the end of March the potential actors had been reduced to three" - the number of actors was reduced, not the actors themselves. I'd also put a comma after "at the end of March".
  • "The writers' found" - remove the apostrophe
  • "Having worked with Schwimmer before,[24] the character of Ross was written with him in mind" - the current grammar suggests that the character of Ross had worked with Schwimmer before (which of course is nonsense)
  • "When Cox auditioned by the role," - "for the role"?
  • "Crane claims that "he was shoved down our throats!", and Kauffman explains that it was a favor for the network they had to do" - why the sudden switch to simple present?

[to be continued] – sgeureka t•c 23:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My computer has decided to hate me, and I have to reinstall the operating system. I hope to get the internet working again no later than tomorrow to finish the review, or I'll hijack the computer from a family member when he's asleep. – sgeureka t•c 14:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue. Some issues may also appear outside the sections where I noted them, so a Ctrl+F search may help with further prose improvement.

Writing:

Done

  • "When Friends was picked up by NBC" -> "When NBC picked up Friends" (active voice)
  • "unemployed writers would send in" - is it important that they were unimployed? Why use "would send in" instead of "sent in"
  • "When Friends was picked up by NBC, unemployed writers would send in the scripts they had prepared for other series, mainly unproduced Seinfeld episodes. In the next few weeks, Crane, Kauffman and Bright reviewed the scripts and hired a team of seven writers.[29] Kauffman and Crane only hired young writers; Kauffman explained, "When you're 40, you can't do it anymore. The networks and studios are looking for young people coming in out of college."" -> trim to "In the weeks after NBC's pick up of Friends, Crane, Kauffman and Bright reviewed sent-in scripts that writers had originally prepared for other series, mainly unproduced Seinfeld episodes. Kauffman and Crane hired a team of seven young writers because "When you're 40, you can't do it anymore. The networks and studios are looking for young people coming in out of college."
  • "ideas for the storylines" - "storyline ideas"
  • "In the early plan for the series, the big love story was between Joey and Monica. Crane said that when they were pitching the series, Joey and Monica seemed to be the most sexual of the characters." -> "The writers originally planned a big love story between Joey and Monica, as they intended them to be the most sexual of the characters in the series pitch."
  • "The writers' refused" - remove apostrophe, sentence can also be incorporated into the previous sentence as "but the writers wanted to keep three story lines of equal weight and refused."
  • "The idea of Ross and Rachel being romantically interested" -> "The idea of a romantic interest between Ross and Rachel" (one experienced FAC reviewer once criticized my overuse of "-ing"s)
  • Pat the Bunny has got its own wiki article -> Pat the Bunny
  • "The storylines for each season would be outlined by the producers" -> "The producers would outline the storylines for each season" (active voice)
  • "a writer suggested the idea of Joey being interested in Rachel" -> "a writer suggested Joey's romantic interest in Rachel" ("-ing")
  • "the actors' feared" - remove apostrophe
  • "the writers' were unsure" - guess what ;-)
  • "For the ninth season, the writers' were unsure of the amount of storyline they wanted to give to Rachel's baby. Crane noted, "we don't want it to become a show about a baby", but "we don't want to pretend that there isn't one."[31]" -> "For the ninth season, the writers were unsure about the amount of storyline to give to Rachel's baby, as they neither wanted the show to revolve around a baby nor pretend there to be none.[31]"

Filming:

Done

  • "but production moved to the larger Stage 24 from the second season." - I am pretty sure the preposition "from" is grammatically incorrect and should be replaced by "in", "at the beginning of" or "for the filming of season 2".
  • "so that they could familiarize" -> "to familiarize"

Not sure

  • "The NBC executives worried that the coffee house setting was too hip, and wanted the series to be set in a diner, similar to Seinfeld.[18]" - this is a "so what happened" sentence for the Friends newbie - was the show filmed in a dine thenr? if not, why not? etc.
  • This section contains three groups of information: (1) filming in front of a live audience, (2) the set, set contruction and set location, (3) filming on location - but the information is all over the place in three paragraphs -> put it into three more logical groupings


Broadcast:

Done

  • "After the pilot lived up to NBC's hopes," - when first reading this sentence, I thought it referred to the aired pilot. Can it be made clearer that this is just the produced un-aired pilot?
  • link Mad About You
  • "The series was finally named Friends, and premiered on September 22, 1994" - since the preceeding sentences in this section don't refer back to name options, maybe shorten it to "The series premiered with the name Friends on September 22, 1994"
  • "yearlong" -> "year-long"
  • some FAC'lers hate the word "prior" and prefer "before"

Not sure

  • "The eighth season was believed by many to be the last, and Crane raised very little reaction when he told reporters that he did not see why the endpoint was a foregone conclusion. Many thought that they he was posturing, and that at least two of the cast members would not sign on for another season." - I know the source (I've read it) backs up these two sentences, but the use of "many" just screams for WP:OR-worthy {{who}}. A more neutral alternative that doesn't raise as many eye brows could be something along the lines, "Critics expected the eighth season to be the least and believed Crane to be posturing when he..."
  • "Prior to the airing of the series finale,... which he enjoyed producing." - what's this paragraph doing in the broadcast section? The last sentence also sounds like regular "Our show is the best" producer's hubbub, and could be removed or be made part of another sentence (e.g. "Although Crane eventually enjoyed the tenth season, the producers were initially reluctant to accept the idea of a tenth season...") - your call.

Series finale:

Done

  • "hourlong" -> "hour-long"
  • "prior" (twice)
  • "found" (twice)
  • "The finale was well received by the main cast, who were confident that the fans would have the same reaction:[43]" -> "The main cast enjoyed the finale and were confident that the fans would react similarly:" (active voice)
  • "preceded by weeks of hype" - I am sure there were tons of fan hype, but "media hype" would be more clarifying (if that was the case)
  • "Viewing parties were organized by local NBC affiliates around the U.S." - "Local NBC affiliates organized viewing parties around the U.S. (active voice)
  • "Dateline NBC" - maybe add that it's a weekly television news magazine for the wikireaders who have never heard of it
  • "a one hour retrospective" -> "a one-hour retrospective"
  • "The advertising rates for the finale averaged $2 million for 30 seconds of commercial time. This was the most ever for a sitcom, breaking the record held by the Seinfeld finale at $1.7 million.[2]" -> remove "This was the most ever for a sitcom,", as the subsequent information implies that already
  • "most watched" -> "most-watched" (twice)
  • "Although it was not the series' most watched episode,[2] " - out of general interest, what is the most-watched Friends episode and how many people watched it?
    • Totally didn't see this one. It was "The One After the Super Bowl", with 52.9 million viewers! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That information could be added, but doesn't have to. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the finales of Friends and Frasier, media critics speculated this signaled the end of the sitcom genre. Other critics argued that it was merely a small decline in the large history of the genre,[2] while many found scripted television to be reducing in favor of reality shows.[44]" -> the WP:OR quantification and {{who}} problem again. An alternative could be, "Following the finales of Friends and Frasier, media critics speculated about the fate of the sitcom genre. Expressed opinions varied between a signaling of the end of the sitcom genre, a small decline in the large history of the genre, and a general reduction of scripted television in favor of reality shows.[44]"

Not sure

  • "The finale was watched on May 6, 2004 by 52.5 million American viewers," -> "52.5 million American viewers watched the finale on May 6, 2004" (active voice, better grammar)
    • Kinda weird starting a paragraph with a number. I was thinking about making it, "In the U.S., 52.5 million viewers watched...", but this would contradict one of your previous requests, I think (correct me if I'm wrong). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think if I made a similar request before, it was about starting sentences with time-related information (which wouldn't be true for "In the U.S."). I see your point about starting sentences with a number. – sgeureka t•c 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[to be continued, hopefully in one last third sweep] – sgeureka t•c 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My issues

  • I'm having with the salary of the cast in the first season. MSNBC says it was 22,000 per episode, while BBC News says it was only 1,600. What do you think? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I once heard that guest actors received a little more than $1,000 for appearing in an episode of a popular one-hour scifi show that was produced in Canada, but I have no clue what main cast actors earn anywhere (scifi vs. comedy, half-an-hour show versus one hour, etc.). One option would be for you to try to find many sources that speak about the salaries, and then compare the results to get to the truth (I did a similar thing at Talk:Pride_and_Prejudice_(1995_TV_serial)#How_many_people_watched_the_episodes). Or you just report that "according to BBC News, the cast got about $1,600 per episode in the first season, while MSNBC reported a salary of $22,000 per episode". I'd try the first option first. (I'll answer your other questions when I've finished the review.) – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last part of the initial review...

Critical reception:

Done

  • "and several critics compared it unfavorably" - better start a new sentence before the "and" and replace "it" with "Friends"
  • "The authors of Friends Like Us: The Unofficial Guide to Friends call the pilot" - switch to simple past like the other reviewers
  • the first paragraph is jumping a lot between "good show", "good cast", "oh, a good show", "oh, an okay cast". Grouping similar elements would be better.
  • "who dismissed the pilot" -> "who had dismissed the pilot", I think
  • link "jump the shark"

Awards

Done

  • "with a nomination in 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2003" - "with nominations in 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2003"
  • "the series has also won" - "the series also won", I think, because it doesn't air anymore and won't be getting any more awards

Ratings

  • Moved below

Cultural impact

Done

  • "pop psychologists" - is there a more general or more respected term?
  • "During the series' run, numerous pop psychologists investigated the cultural impact of Friends, with the producers laughing, "It's only a TV show".[1]" - the second part doesn't work for me at all. Maybe "Although the producers thought of Friends as "only a TV show", numerous pop psychologists investigated the cultural impact of Friends during the series' run."
  • "The professor believed that" - I think you you remove this whole introduction. It is obvious from the previous sentence,the following speculation ("may have accelerated by the way) and the ref that it's still the professor theorizing.
  • "The decor of the coffee houses are inspired by the one in Friends," -> "The decor of the coffee houses is inspired by Friends,"

International

Done

  • "The three year deal meant that Channel 4 would be the first station to air new episodes of the series, and could negotiate pay-TV airings with other broadcasters." -> "The three year deal allowed Channel 4 to air new episodes of the series in the UK first, and to negotiate pay-TV airings with other UK broadcasters."
  • "beating the June 2002 episode which drew" - comma before "which"

Merchandise

Done

  • "sold 500,000 copies in November" - better add the year again

Joey:

  • two awkward uses of "however". Alternatives could be "but" or "although".
  • "NBC canceled the series on May 15, 2006" - after how many seasons?
  • The paragraph contains three passive sentences ("Joey was heavily promoted by NBC,[132] and was given", "The pilot was watched...", "The final broadcast episode ... was watched"). Consider turning one or two of them into active voice.

Film:

  • The first three sentences all begin with a time-related subsentence. For more variety, the time could be moved to the end of one of the sentences.

I could have left way more notes on minor prose issues, but that would have been as frustrating for me to find and explain, as for you to fix. (I am just saying that in case you consider to take the article to FAC someday. A peer review would help, and I expect a couple of reviewers to show up due to the popularity of Friends.) I won't put this article on a regular seven-day-hold, as this amount of time just doesn't scale for an article of this length. I still hope to promote this article within the next 14 days or much faster, depending on the progress (the article doesn't have to be perfect). I try to help with the/your open questions/issues in the meantime. – sgeureka t•c 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your changes and answered open questions. I guess I'll promote this article much sooner than in "14 days". – sgeureka t•c 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now addressed most of your comments, but there are still a couple I need to fix. I moved the most outstanding ones below, but I left a couple above for you to decide whether are good enough/fixed now. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done

  • International - it's not always clear which channels belong to which country.
  • International - Since the article focuses on English-speaking countries only (which is good, because it would overwhelm the article otherwise), why is Canada left out?
  • The article occasionally uses quotes à la "blabla." and sometimes "blabla". See Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks in regards to punctuation.
  • Ratings - This section is missing an intro sentence, like for what the section is actually about without defining just the elements of the table. For example, say that the ratings are about the US broadcast, and that Friends always ranked in the top 10, or something like that, before going into definitions. Maybe even paraphrase the definitions into non-definition prose, where the reader of average intelligence can still figure out what the table is about.
  • Cast - Generally, the character descriptions seem to be written in your own words, especially the adjectives. I assume that more than enough reliable secondary sources exist to prevent any future claims of original research/synthesis based on primary sources, and if you can quickly find and add some, great. (I am only saying this because this would certainly come up in an FAC.)
    • I had another read, and I think that Phoebe is the main issue. I'll try to find some refs for her, but are there any adjectives/descriptions for other characters which you think need sourcing? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen enough of Friends to not doubt the character descriptions and I would/will promote the article even if the descriptions remain unsourced. But I don't know if someone who has never seen Friends would take issue, and I foresee this coming up in a FAC. Parts that may require sources then are "a fashion enthusiast", "known for her obsessive-compulsive and competitive nature", "eccentric", "is known for being street-smart and yet naive and promiscuous", and "sarcastic sense of humor". – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article may benefit from occasionally moving some time descriptions from the beginning of a short sentence to the end, e.g. "Prior to the airing of the episode, a one hour retrospective of clips from previous episodes was shown" -> "A one-hour retrospective of clips from previous episodes was shown before to the airing of the episode."
  • the whole article has a lot(!) of "they said/noted/explained/stated they did X" etc (e.g. "Bright, Kauffman and Crane noted that they produced the series") - the producers are reliable sources, so you can tighten and thus considerably improve the prose by shortening it to "they did X" (e.g. "Bright, Kauffman and Crane produced the series")
  • link the series finale, or put it into a {{seealso}} banner at the top of this section (along with the pilot). Still, it still seems that WP:UNDUE weight is given to that final episode here, and I'd trim it into half its length, focussing on its impact (and the reception thereof) for the entire series, not just the episode.
    • I trimmed the reviews of the finale to only four, and linked the episode. I'll add stuff about the series' overall reception later. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems fine to me already. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems like most issues have been dealt with, and the open issues are nowhere GAN-fail-worthy territory. I'd say you just read over the article again with my notes in mind and tell me when you're done with a non-in-detph copyedit. I'll promote the article then. Everything else can be done on voluntary basis. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and made some changes/reordering. Anything still standing out? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing standing out for a successful GAN. The points that haven't been struck yet can be taken as advice for further improvement, but that's beyond GAN. Promote. – sgeureka t•c 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who is my freind[edit]

hel...................lo is there any body there I want to talk where are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.2.24 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friends/GA1&oldid=1136277211"