Wikipedia:Peer review/Veronica Clare/archive1

Veronica Clare

Hello everyone! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to put it up for a FAC sometime in the future, but before doing that, I wanted to get as much feedback as possible to make that process smoother. I had originally worked on this article back in 2018 (and received a very helpful GAN), but I have recently rewritten the entire thing after finding more coverage of the show on Newspapers.com. Thank you in advance for any help and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox

• "that aired on Lifetime for nine episodes between July 1991 and September 1991" → that aired nine episodes on Lifetime between July and September 1991

• Very good catch. I agree that it is better to put the episode part right after "aired" instead of separating. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "its successful acquisition" → "successful" is redundant

• Removed. Always good to find ways to remove this kind of redundancy. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "of The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd from NBC" → of NBC's The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd

• Revised. It is a good way to shorten this part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Los Angeles doesn't need a link

• Very true. I would imagine that a majority of Wikipedia readers already have some level of familiarity with Los Angeles that a link would be silly. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "which can be accessed through the Library of Congress as video reels" → seems unnecessary

• I have removed this bit from the lead as it does seem unnecessarily trivial and it is a matter better reserved for the body of the article where its importance is better contextualized (i.e. it is the only way that this series can be accessed). Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• what is a "period car"?

• I have linked the phrase to the classic car article. It is referencing how the show uses older, 1940s-era cars to go with the film noir aesthetic. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "[Patricia Fili" → random bracket?

• Removed. I am not sure how that ended up there. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "explained that the network invested $1 billion into its original programming over a decade and cited Veronica Clare was part of this strategy" → this is from 1991 so I'm unsure if it's appropriate to refer to it in past-tense; maybe they didn't end up spending $1 billion.

• That is a good point, and thank you for catching this. I have changed this to future tense (or what I believe is future tense as I am never good at remember the exact names for these concepts) by using "would invest" instead. I am not sure if the network really followed through with this plan or not. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Although Lifetime marketed its content to women between the ages of 18 and 49, Fili clarified that the network was interested in male viewers. She explained: "We don't want the network to appear as for women only. We look at the woman as the gatekeeper to the network." → seems unnecessary for this article

• Fair point. I have removed it as it does seem more appropriate for the article on the network as opposed to an individual show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Very good article; I am unsure if Thrilling Detective would pass a source review. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Thank you for the review. I greatly appreciate the time and energy you put into it, and it is always a pleasure working with you. You honestly inspire me a lot to try and be a better reviewer as I know that I can improve in that area. I understand your point about the Thrilling Detective article. I used it because it was the only source that I could find to support the episode titles, their airdates, and the show's directors. I had initially considered using TV listings to support the episode titles and their airdates, but I had a really hard time tracking down the directors. I thought Thrilling Detective could be appropriate since it is cited in books from reputable publishers (like Palgrave Macmillan and McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers), but I understand if that is not enough for it to be seen as acceptable by a FAC source reviewer. If you still believe that Thrilling Detective is not appropriate for a FA (which again is totally fine), would you have any advice for finding an alternative citation (or alternative citations) for this information? My primary concern is with the directors. Since I am unable to see any of the episodes myself (since the series is not readily made available to the public), I would feel uncomfortable to use them as primary sources. Apologies for the long response. I just wanted to make sure that I fully explained the situation as I actually was uncertain about Thrilling Detective myself. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words! I am definitely inspired by you too; there's a couple things in this article that I will try to adapt/include when writing my next one lol. The use of Thrilling Detective in those sources is definitely reassuring. If it's good enough for those publishers then it should be for Wikipedia. It is truly terrible how little sources there are for television titles/air dates/production crew. It's not like these shows are from the 1950s either. Do you have access to ProQuest outside of The Wikipedia Library? I found a piece from the Writers Guild of America West Journal where there's a short paragraph about how the episodes cost $700,000 each and how that was cheaper network TV series. I was thinking it might be helpful; do you want me to email you a PDF? I am also wondering if http://www.epguides.com/VeronicaClare/logo.jpg is better than the current and proposed images. It looks to me like the most natural/original colouring. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Thank you for the response. I do not have access to ProQuest unfortunately. I would greatly appreciate appreciate that PDF as it is always great to get more information to add into the article. Your image recommendation is so much better because the coloring seems more indicative of how it would have appeared on the show. I will definitely use it. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• The coloring for File:VeronicaClareTitleCard.jpg doesn't seem very high quality, even for a show that aired almost 30 years ago. Is anything in higher definition available?

• That is a good point. The image is not particularly helpful at least in its current state. IMDB has an image of this (here), that might be better quality? For a different approach, here is a potential alternative. It seems to be one of the postcards used to separate acts in the episodes. Unfortunately, I could not find any posters for the series or anything similar to use as a substitute. Articles do use images from the episodes, but I am not sure about using them in an infobox. I am open to any suggestions for replacement ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• No point in having a "list of episodes" link within infobox when all of them are listed here and not on a subpage

• I have removed this part. I agree with you as this can be easily accessed through the table of contents anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I get what you're trying to say with "sexual appeal", that comes off as saying "she's sexy", so maybe say "looks" or "appearance" instead.

• I am uncertain about this as the sources discuss how Clare explicitly uses her sexuality/sensuality in her cases. I understand your reasoning as it can be seen as a potentially problematic thing to say in Wikipedia's voice, particularly in regards to how women are discussed on the site, but her sexuality is something focused on in the coverage of the show (and apparently in the show itself) so I would think it would be better to be direct about it. I would be more than open to discuss this further, but I just wanted to present my perspective on it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are any reasons ever given for the main character refusing payment for her work?

• Since I do not have access to any of the episodes, I cannot say for certain. If I had to speculate, it is likely tied to how she only takes on cases based on her personal interest. It seems like she views her time as a private investigator less as a job and more as a hobby (which may be why she is also portrayed as the co-owner of a restaurant/night club). Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "crush" within "has a crush on Clare" is too informal. You'd be better off saying something like "attracted to" or "infatuated with".

• Fair point. I have replaced it with "attracted to" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Jb image.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work

• Thank you for checking this out. I am quite bad at images, but I did not see any noticeable red flags. It is rather frustrating though the year the photo was taken is not specified. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink the dollar sign from "invest $1 billion" per WP:OVERLINK

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• When was this series filmed?

• I could not find a source that explicitly says when this was filmed. The closest thing that I found was an article in which the writer talked to Robinson while she was shooting an episode in Los Angeles, but it does not provide any context on when this interaction occurred. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is it known why the show can't be found on DVD or streaming service?

• I do not believe an official reason was given for this. I would speculate that there was never enough public interest to push for a home release on any format. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So far, the only glaring issue (at least that I could find) is a lack of filming times. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your review. I have addressed everything, except for two points (i.e. the one about the infoxbox image and the other about how the article addresses the lead character's sexuality). I look forward to hearing your responses for both of them. Thank you again for helping me with this. I did not realize until you pointed it out that this show is almost 30 years old. Something about that is just crazy to me lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome. I unfortunately doubt you'll pass on comprehensiveness without filming details, but as for the use of "sexual appeal", you could make it more neutral by trying to directly quote someone who discusses that aspect of her character. That IMDb image does thankfully give a clearer display, so no objections to using it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for the responses. I will go through the article tomorrow to replace the infobox image and rework the "sexual appeal" parts. I disagree that the article would fail a FAC based on comprehensiveness issues. I have worked on successful FACs about television shows where the exact dates for shooting was not specified as that information is not available. Since that information is not available, I do not see why that would hold the article back from a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have gone back to the article and replaced the infobox image and reworked the "sexual appeal" parts. I hope that my above comment was not rude. I just disagree based on my personal FAC experiences and my own opinions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

While it shocks (and disappoints) me how that can't be found for some series, the key thing is to be certain that all verifiable major details are included. The prose in the meantime definitely looks better now :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. I will definitely continue looking for any additional sources that may discuss this and I will go through the sources that I have to make sure that I did not accidentally overlook anything. Thank you again for the help and I hope you are having a great start of your week :) Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Homeostasis07

I've just read through the article, and was impressed with the quality of both the prose and sourcing for such an obscure show. Here are the only comments I can make about the article:

Lead

• between July 1991 and September 1991. → I'm not sure you need two instances of the year. It would be obvious to everyone that "between July and September 1991" referred to July and September of 1991.

• Good point. I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• She relies on her intelligence and looks for her cases, and only pursues those that interest her and refuses any payment in return. → She relies on her intelligence and looks to solve cases, and only pursues ones that interest her, and refuses any payment in return.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• The supporting cast is her close friends and co-workers, → The supporting cast consists of her close friends and co-workers

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Style and comparisons

• The show's background music is often covers of ... → The show's background music often features covers of ...

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Journalists have associated the character with other fictional detectives: Mike Hammer, ... → Journalists have associated the character with other fictional detectives such as Mike Hammer ...

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, I thought this was an interesting article, and would happily support at FAC should you choose to go down that route. Hope you keep well. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I have addressed everything, and if you have any further comments, I would be more than happy to look through anything else. I hope you have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv

Sources all look reliable (no spotchecking done). Some prose comments:

• "She relies on her intelligence and looks for cases, and only pursues ones that interest her, and refuses any payment in return." — I think this can be tightened up. It's not clear what she's "rely[ing] on her intelligence" for and the three "and"s drag a bit. Maybe "She pursues only cases that interest her, often finding these herself, and refuses payment. Clare solves cases using her intelligence and intuition."?

• Thank you for the suggestion. I have used in the lead. I particularly like how you included how Clare is the one who finds the cases herself as that is a good point to include there. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The supporting cast consists of her close friends and co-workers" — This should be "supporting characters", right? The (real-life) cast aren't friends/co-workers of the (fictional) character.

• Revised. I am not sure how I missed that one lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "which was discussed by television critics" – Doesn't add meaningful information, so expand on what they discussed about it or remove.

• Good point. I ended up removing it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "following its acquisition of NBC's The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd" – Not clear (in the lead) how that relates or why it's a significant event.

• Fair point. It is not notable enough for the lead so I removed it. I added a mention of the two other original programs that were created alongside this show, but that seems too trivial for the lead, I could remove that. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say television studio is an overlink as a phrase understood by most readers.

• Very true. The phrase is very straight-forward that I'd imagine even readers unfamiliar with television would have a basic understanding of it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "After nine episodes aired" – Worth mentioning in the lead that it was commissioned for 13, I think.

• Agreed! Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've become a vocal opponent of these "quotes from nowhere", even though the practice is commonplace. This applies to any of the quotes that don't have prose attribution, such as all of these: ... Throughout the episodes, Clare operates on her own "extremely personal code of ethics". The series portrays her as a "private eyeful" through scenes in which she uses her "seductive charms" during investigations ... Who are these quotes of? I would reword these in your own words wherever possible, and if a description is so emotive/specific/non-neutral that it can't be said in Wikipedia's voice then add prose attribution.

• I agree that this is a bad practice that should receive more pushback and criticism as attribution is incredibly important and the citations should not be completely relied without attribution in the prose. I could see confusion from readers wondering where these quotes are coming from and if this information is presented in Wikipedia's voice. I paraphrased one minor quote, but I have attributed most of them. The "private eyeful" quote seems so specific that I think it is worthy of inclusion, and I would think it could hopefully help readers better understand how the show represents Clare's sexuality. However, if further quotes require paraphrasing, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• No problem, that looks better. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• The series does not present Rado as ... a "source of wisdom and authorization for her" – This raises more questions than it answers, to me. Can you tell what the series does present Rado as? Or rephrase to make it more about Clare (e.g. just guessing at a possible meaning, "does not present Clare as requiring Rado's help to solve cases").

• The source identifies Rado as only being Clare's business partner. I have revised this sentence to hopefully be clearer, but let me know if further clarification can be given. I can understand your confusion though as this seems to rule out a lot of things this character can do in the show, but I agree with your idea that it is more so indicating Clare does not need Rado's help for her investigations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, that is a lot clearer now. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Episodes do incorporate elements of humor – no-one said they didn't! I don't think "cold and distant" implies there's no comedy, but then again, I am British. Would this be better as Episodes have elements of humor?

• That is very true. I was being rather presumptuous with that one. I think my thought process at the time was that the show was not marketed as a comedy and was noted for a cold/distant tone, but I agree that does not equate to an implication that there is not humor whatsoever. I have revised it per your suggestions as it is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Critics compared Clare to Lauren Bacall and Veronica Lake – Maybe defer the mention of Bacall to the second half of the sentence, as there's no need to mention her twice when the second mention is also about comparing her to Clare.

• Good idea. I have revised it to avoid the unnecessary repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• doubted if the show's producers shared her opinion – I think "doubted that" would be better.

• I agree. I have revised that part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• cited Veronica Clare was part of this strategy – "cited Veronica Clare as"?

• Yikes. Another bad typo on my part. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Each episode cost $700,00 – Something amiss in the number.

• Another silly typo on my part. On a somewhat related note, this made me realize I honestly do not know what the average budget for this kind of show would have been per episode. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• In the UK, we had a show called Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe which had a recurring segment about how TV is made, aggregated in a brilliant special called Guide to TV. One part breaks down how their shoe-string budget of £50,000 per 30-minute episode was used, but most of the show was filmed in Brooker's apartment and anyone on-screen who was not Brooker was generally a member of the crew doubling as an actor. So you can make TV with a lot less, but for a detective show with lots of different sets and actors and props, I can see that $700,000 even in 1991 money could be quite below average. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• cheaper in comparison to network television shows – Just "cheaper than network television shows".

• Revised. I am not sure why I went for the overly wordy part, but your suggestion is much better and more concise. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Can you put the footnote about "Pilot"/"Veronica Clare" next to that episode's title, rather than in the column header?

• When I put the footnote next to the episode title, it goes inside the quotation marks and I think that looks rather odd and distracting. Would there be a way to avoid that? If not, would it still be better to move it down there anyway? I agree that it would be ideal to put the note there as it is rather confusing to put on the top of the column rather than for the specific part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, if you put the note in the parameter RTitle ("R" standing for "Reference", I guess) it should work. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• found her to be paradoxical – I'm not sure I follow why.

• Thank you for pointing this out. After looking through that particular source again, I have removed it for two reasons. The writer refers to Clare as a "paradoxical character" without further explanation, but I believe this is done as she is presented as mysterious and is shown to be in what was considered a male role at the time. There is also a much larger discussion on the apparent contradiction in Lifetime's programming, specifically how its female characters were portrayed and its approach on feminism, but that is more so about the network as a whole and not about this specific show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Overall, a really interesting topic. It sounds like it deserved better treatment than the network gave it with the hiatus and cancellation. — Bilorv (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you again for your time and help. I have addressed all of your comments, except for one which I have a question about. I agree that this show seemingly deserved better. I am surprised that Lifetime did not try to invest in it for a second season (or at least for the full 13-episode order), especially when they renewed The Hidden Room. The basic concept seems like a lot of fun, and I'd imagine that the show has become somewhat of an unintentional period piece for the early 1990s so that adds an extra layer. I would love it if the episodes were somehow released, but that is highly unlikely so this will likely be the only clip out there for this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely, would be nice to watch an episode. If I'm ever in the Library of Congress I'll have to request a video reel. Let me know if/when the FAC is up. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Will do. Your review actually helped me to find another scholarly article written about the show. I am actually quite surprised that this show has received this amount of attention from scholars. The FAC will not be anytime soon as I will likely leave this up for another month as I am trying to be more patient with the peer review process. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)