Talk:Bang (The Good Wife)/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

Reviewer: Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article against the Good article criteria. I have already checked it against the "quick fail criteria", and it passes that, so I will now begin the "review proper". This may take me a few days, so please be patient :)

I will be back soon with a complete review. All the best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Prose is generally good, but I have some issues regarding the plot.
    • "as well as the Cole and actress..." Let's not give Gary Cole too big of an ego and call him The Cole! :)
    • Although the subject of the article is an episode of a serialized drama, we shouldn't make the article serialized in the same manner. It currently assumes the reader knows too much. Maybe they do know some of the background, but maybe they don't, especially if they arrive here by Special:Random. They may have never seen an episode. Take the first sentence of the Plot section, "Peter Florrick (Chris Noth) returns home to a emotional reunion with his children". Who is Peter? Where has he been? How long has he been gone? Why has he been gone? As a reader I am unable to put the characters into any WP:Context
    • "his conflicted wife Alicia (Julianna Margulies) looks on." why is she conflicted? (I'm currently 5 or 6 episodes behind, but I'm assuming it has something to do with the relationship between her and Will?)
      • Removed conflicted and added later sentence giving context to the tension surrounding Peter's return.--Opark 77 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Zach shows Peter incriminating photos he had been hiding from his mother, which are doctored to appear like Peter is sleeping with other women." -- where did he get these photos?
    • "Meanwhile, Alicia helps Diane (Christine Baranski) defend Brad Broussard" So this is the first time we hear that Alicia is a defense lawyer. She's taking second chair, I presume. There's no mention that Diane is a partner at the law firm Alicia works at. May be important, may not be. Same with regards to Will.
    • "Meanwhile, Kalinda (Archie Panjabi) visits FBI agent Lana Davenport..." -- again, who is Kalinda?
    • "Meanwhile, Peter reveals to a stunned..." This is the fourth "meanwhile" in the plot summary. Try to change how you introduce the switching of plot elements so it doesn't sound too repetitive. You don't have to be linear when writing Plot summaries at Wikipedia. The bit about Peter showing Alicia the photos can be added to the first paragraph, which is all about the Florrick family.
      • Already rearranged. Removed some meanwhiles.--Opark 77 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My recommendation is to have an introductory paragraph, telling the backstory of the family, such as Peter, the former state governor (attorney? I Can't remember) has been sent to prison for commiting various schemes, possibly having been set up, and his wife found out that he's cheated on her many times. She's had to move from their big house in the suburbs to a city apartment, and has been forced to return to work while her husband is incarcerated. You could then spend a couple of sentences on who Diane, Will and Kalinda are. Basically, the article needs to provide the reader with context. See WP:MOSFICT#Contextual presentation and WP:MOSFICT#Plot summaries.
      • I've tried to address the context issues without lengthening the plot summary to much. If this is insufficient then an introduction could still be added.--Opark 77 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After that initial paragraph, you can then go into the actual plot summ of this episode. I would go with one paragraph for the family storyline, and one paragraph for the courtcase storyline. Right now, some of what is in the Plot is too much of a recap, for example, "Meanwhile, Diane speaks to a ballistics expert named Kurt McVeigh (Gary Cole), a mustachioed country man with a strict principle that he will not work if the client is guilty. Kurt reveals Broussard could not have shot Wagner because the forensics indicate he was shot inside a car." See WP:PLOTSUMNOT and WP:Plot summaries. At most, all we need to know is that Kurt McVeigh (Gary Cole) a ballistics expert, testifies that Broussard did not shoot Wagner because the forensics indicate he was shot inside a car.
    • Basically, for the plot, rather than giving a play-by-play recap of the scenes, just summarize the main two or three storylines in as few words as possible without losing all coherence. Add more WP:CONTEXT, but be succinct (WP:CONCISE) at the same time.
      • Attempted to follow this suggestion.--Opark 77 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving on to the other sections, The Production section says "It originally aired on March 2, 2010, marking the first episode of The Good Wife in three weeks after a break due to the 2010 Winter Olympics." This statement to me sounds like it belongs in a "distribution" section, where you could say how the episode was made available. Besides CBS, was it made available for viewing on any new media formats such as streaming at CBS.com Innertube or TV.com? Hulu? Is it downloadable from iTunes? etc) This section could be developed in the future when/if it gets released on DVD and picked up for syndication. Besides it airing on CBS, you should also include broadcast information for other major countries for which en.wp has readership, such as Canada, Aus, UK and NZ. This will stop the article from falling foul of WP:BIAS.
      • I've made a Distribution section. So far, as near as I can tell, it's only aired in the United States and the Netherlands. The Good Wife is currently running in Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, in Australia and Germany, but as you can see from the links, we haven't gotten up to this episode in those countries yet. When they do, I can update this section. It's on iTunes but not Hulu, and I've indicated that in the section. — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to the same sentence, how exactly did the Olympics affect the scheduling, when the Olympics aired on NBC? Did CBS not want to risk losing viewing figures? Do the two references give any further information?
      • The sources don't say. It was my understanding that it's not uncommon for shows to take a break during events like the Olympics, partially because they know their shows would get crushed the competitions. I don't have a source for that, but honestly, I didn't think it was so important that it needed clarification anyway. — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for production, do you have any other possible sources for gathering information? It's an interesting part in production that the first scene of the episode could have been used as the final scene of the series, but what about other stuff? Can we find out how Cole and Cumming won their roles? Were they written specifically for them or did they get them through a regular audition process? When was the episode filmed? Where was it filmed? In Chicago, where it's set, in Los Angeles, or in New York? (The answer is one of those three). Was it shot on film or tape, etc etc. If that information is not available, I fear the article may have a problem with regards to the Production section because all it discusses is one scene, and obviously, more than one scene was produced.
      • Again, like in Lovely (Desperate Housewives), I've used all the sources I've been able to dig up for the Production section. The questions you ask are great ones, but I don't have any reliable sources with the answer. But since I haven't neglected any sources, I don't think it should be considered a strike against the article. — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you could do is merge the Cultural references section into the production section and discuss the writing. "The writers based the episode around the Ponzi scheme..." etc, etc instead of "'Bang' makes prominent reference to the Ponzi scheme..."
      • I did that with the Ponzi scheme info and you're right, it works much better this way. What about the rest of the Cultural references section? I know we axed that section altogether at the Desperate Housewives GAN review, but in this case, I think the section is a lot more extensive and interesting, is well sourced, and includes some information that would make the plot section too long if I tried to cram it in there. I'd be in favor of keeping it, or at least keeping some of the stuff that made up major bits of dialogue or moments int he episode (Palin, McVeigh, Melville, etc.) and cut some of the other stuff. But I'll defer to your judgment. — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It marked a 13 percent drop in viewership from the previous week." -- earlier in the article it says that it was the first new episode in three weeks. Was the episode a previous week a rerun? If so, it is even more notable, because a rebroadcast episode earned more viewers than a brand new episode
      • My mistake, this should have said the previous original episode. It does not. — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reception section, in regards to the critical response, is set into two paragraphs, and half of the first. Because you're switching from talking about viewing figures to critical reception, that is where you should begin a new paragraph, as it's an entirely different subject. Then, you've got the LA Times commenting on the chemsitry between two sets of characters and end the paragraph, before starting a new paragraph which also discusses how the chemistry was received by a critic from another publication. I think it would flow better if you put all the comments about the family storylines into one paragraph, all the comments about the courtroom based plot and the political themes in a second, and all the stuff about the character chemistry into another.
      • I think I've addressed your concerns, but if it needs more work, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • References are mostly okay, except for [17] from David Horowitz. It's a blog (personal?), so what makes this a WP:RS?
      • David Horowitz himself is a noted conservative writer and policy expert, who has written several columns over the years and founded several organizations. I think in the case of a site like this it's fair to assess the source on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I think since he's a notable writer, he can be considered a reliable source. Plus his information in this case serves as a counterbalance to another point, so I think it actually helps the article avoid WP:UNDUE issues... — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs [3] and [11] from Cincinnati.com and Seattle PI are coming back dead: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=en:Bang_%28The_Good_Wife%29 These will need to be removed and replaced
      • I replaced the Seattle PI link. As for the Cincinnati one, it's no longer online. However, since it ran in the print edition as well as online, I modified the source to be an off-line news media source, not an online one. I think this is acceptable, but if you have a problem with it, we can remove it altogether (or feel free to do so yourself). — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other references are good, meet the WP:RS guidelines, are used correctly, etc etc
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    In a way, it's too focused (see previous points)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    As I said above, include information about where it aired in other countries where en.wp has high readershipto avoid WP:BIAS.
    And try to dig up a few reviews that aren't as favourable, or, if the ones used already have anything to say that isn't positive, include them.
    • I've used every review I've found. I believe the reason for so many positive reviews not because I've neglected the bad reviews, but that it is simply received almost entirely good reviews. If you know of any sources that should be added though, let me know... — Hunter Kahn 22:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    none
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image fails WP:NFCC#8. A couple of good examples of articles that do meet NFCC for reference are The Stolen Earth, and Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation). (Check the File pages of the lede images, and use the FURs from them)
    • I've tried to rework the purpose of use of the image. Let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    • A decent article, that just needs a few final touches. If the image and plot are addressed, it will go a long way to getting this closer to GA material. I'm placing the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the nominator and other article contributors the chance to address the comments. Good luck!
    Pass/Fail:

OK, well the article is definitely coming along nicely. So here's a bit more feedback. The Lede still says "previous week", although you've explained that you meant the previous new episode, so that needs fixing. The plot section is pretty good. My only grievance with it now is that {{cite episode}} should be used for everything that hasn't happened in this episode. Sentences such as, but not limited to: "Peter had been imprisoned for several months after being convicted of charges of corruption.", "Alicia is uncomfortable about Peter's return because of his infidelity, which was exposed at the time of his conviction.", "Zach shows Peter incriminating photos he had been hiding from Alicia, which are doctored to show Peter being unfaithful. Zach intercepted the photos when they were anonymously delivered to the Florrick residence." etc etc

  • I added a citation to most of them. I'm not sure which episodes Zach got the photos or took the secret pictures. However, both of these instances are explained within the episode "Bang" itself, so I don't think it needs a citation. If you still feel it does, let me know and I'll try to find out again. — Hunter Kahn 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences that say "Some commentators suggested Cummings' character, Eli Gold, was based on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Both are political operatives from Chicago noted for bullying tactics and their use of foul language.[3][4]" -- The refs should be moved to the end of the first paragraph, and then if you can find another reference that describes Eamnuel in such a way, include it at the end of the second.

  • I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here. — Hunter Kahn 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! I meant "Sentence", not paragraph. So that the sentences would be "Some commentators suggested Cummings' character, Eli Gold, was based on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.[3][4] Both are political operatives from Chicago noted for bullying tactics and their use of foul language.[citation needed]" Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had thought that this source that was already there covered it: "...was modeled after none other than White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. There was bullying, foul language and Chicago origins." However, I'd added another source of some fairly recent accusations of bullying tactics from Emanuel. Let me know if it works. — Hunter Kahn 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for the Cultural references section, could you do something like use {{cite episode}} and specifically the minutes= field for all the references, else repeate the WSJ reference a few times

  • I don't currently have access to the episode anymore, so I've simply repeated the WSJ reference. — Hunter Kahn 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I have recorded all the episodes so I will go back and do this at some point. Same with looking up refs for those pictures. Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Television Network broadcasts The Good Wife in Canada. I'm pretty sure it's a simulcast because the series premiere on Global on September 22nd, and the most recent episode available at Global's website is episode 18, which is the one most recently aired on CBS. I don't know if it's possble to find a reference for "Bang"'s Canadian airdate and network, but perhaps you could cite a TV Guide listings magazine or something?

  • I found a source, but it's a website, and as I'm not familiar with Canadian television, I'm not sure whether it's reliable or not. It gets the job done, but let me know if it works. — Hunter Kahn 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I don't believe it's a RS. They claim to be a social networking site. I'll see if I can dig up anything. Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I added a source from the Ottawa Citizen TV listings from Sunday Feb 28, which will satisfy any RS concerns. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else is good. Well done so far. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a couple of references that weren't formatted correctly and ran a couple of scripts over the article. I'm happy to say that I think everything now meets WP:GA?, so it will be listed at WP:GA. Well done to everyone involved in writing the article. Pass/Fail: Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bang_(The_Good_Wife)/GA1&oldid=1089883526"