Talk:Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on this today and tomorrow. Please be patient...though I can tell this page has been waiting a while. AstroCog (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting to the article! I'm working the next three days, with only leaving me the mornings to touch up the article from the review. Just to let you know. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! This is one of my favorite shows, and it was painful to me to see this request just sitting there for so long.AstroCog (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will be using this criteria (review is in bold and italics) AstroCog (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Overall, the writing is good. Just some minor work will satisfy me. The production and writing section contains some colloquial language, particularly the use of the word "big". For example, "...as all previous seasons had a big action climax..." and "...which was a big departure for Whedon..." This type of language use should be fixed. I'm not a copy-editor on this article, so I'm not going try to find every instance of this. Another example: "In the theater scene in Willow's dream, the Frazier lens provides a large depth of field, allowing the foreground and background to be in focus at the same time." - Should be something like "In the theater scene during Willow's dream, a Frazier lens was used to provide..." I know that in TV articles, you can talk about the show in the present tense, but really only for fiction and character arc stuff. I think for writing about how the episode was produced, you can use past tense. Perhaps this article could use another copy-edit?

I am happy to attend to this today.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten and reorganized that whole section; I think it reads much better now.--TEHodson 01:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks quite good and I'm happy with it. One nitpick: "Whedon again cites The Limey..." - Take out "again" because this is the first mention of "The Limey" in the article. Probably happened because of rearrangement.AstroCog (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's been fixed now. Huge props to TEHodson for his copy-editing work. Much appreciated! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it (and I'm a woman, not a man!). I should have been sleeping, but once started, couldn't stop. And back at you for doing all those bloody references! I still have to do the Background paragraph. I'm too tired today, but will do it on Sunday. Thanks to Astrocog for passing us!--TEHodson 01:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Don't thank me yet. I still want to see that series background in the Plot section. That's the last thing. AstroCog (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know (I misunderstood something you wrote below, when you said "I'm passing it as is"). I have Sunday scheduled to do the Background section. I don't have time to do it properly till then. It'll be done when you come back on Monday.--TEHodson 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* No worries. I'm patient.AstroCog (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I promised I'd do the background section today and I always keep my word, but I've taken sick and will be out of commission for a day or two. I have gotten off to a good start with a source re season four, etc., but can't think clearly enough to write. I'll be back, though. --TEHodson 05:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm still not up to par, but I did the Background section. Please let me hear your feedback and suggestions. Thanks.--TEHodson 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

The citations here aren't all in the correct format. For journal articles, page numbers within a volume should be given. Also, the citation for "Entertainment Weekly" isn't correct. That article doesn't seem to have appeared in print. So make an appropriate citation to the EW website, not the magazine. The same is true of the USA Today citations. Are they print articles, or website articles? Where is the author attribution on these and the Onion AV Club citations?

So, what exactly needs to be changed for the Entertainment Weekly reference? Does it simply not have to be in italics, due to being an article on the website? It's in italics because EW is a magazine. The A.V. Club reference doesn't have a author attribution is because the article was written by 9 different authors, should I list them all anyway? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it EW.com, which is what it is, rather than Entertainment Weekly, which is the print magazine. If 9 authors wrote the Onion AV article, then all 9 authors should be listed. Here's a citation generator I use a lot for articles: citation generator I think it's also good form to use Wayback Machine to get an archived version of websites used as references, because sometimes those websites disappear. The aforementioned citation generator tool gives a place to put the archived URL.AstroCog (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix these now, but I want some clarification. Are the changes you looking for are, Entertainment Weekly -> EW.com, The A.V. Club -> The A.V. Club, USA Today -> USATODAY.com. I'll add the authors to one of the A.V. Club references as well. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems right. You may want to check on whether or not the webpage needs to be italicized. Also look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Webpages.AstroCog (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

According to the article's talk page, there could be more sources to use within this article. I'm particularly concerned about the use of so many websites as sources. It's the old-school academic in me, but I like to see more print sources, than website sources. I realize that this is not always possible, but for a popular and much-analyzed show like Buffy, I think there should be quite a bit more than some of these Top 10 webpages for critical reception. Other issues in the article with citations: in the Plot section, things that are not apparent from just viewing the episode should be referenced. One obvious example is the statement, "Willow's dream opens with Willow painting Sappho's love poem, Hymn to Aphrodite, in Greek onto Tara's back." It's been about a year seen I've last watched this episode, but I don't remember any characters identifying the poem. If it was identified in one of the commentaries or books, then that statement should be referenced. The same should be true of any other such instance in the plot section.

You're correct, the poem is not identified in the episode itself. That's from the commentary, I'll add the appropriate reference there. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other references mentioned in the talk page? Can those be incorporated?AstroCog (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only book I have is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy" and it makes no mention of "Restless" in any of its articles. I'm sorry I can't help with this part.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

No problems with OR.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Articles on Wikipedia should stand alone. If I were a person reading this article without having any knowledge about Buffy or the show, I would be almost completely lost in the plot section. The plot section assumes a lot of knowledge about the show and characters. My recommendation is not to rework the plot section, although that could be done, but to begin with a sub-section called Background, which gives a brief overview of what the television show is, its basic premise, who the characters are, and a bit of context leading up to Restless. I'm imagining something that's about two paragraphs.

There is just such a section (called Background) that is used on both the Hush and The Body episode articles. Can we just cut and paste it to here, or do we have to ask permission of whoever wrote that paragraph? I know Moni was one of the writers of those articles.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really the big change needed, I think. Text similar to the Hush and The Body episode articles can be used, but be sure to first read about copying within Wikipedia.AstroCog (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on that tomorrow. Please see major rewrite to section mentioned above re 1) Well-written section.--TEHodson 01:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

This is where I have mixed feelings about the sources. Most of the sources are either from Whedon, scholar-fans who write for a journal specifically dedicated to Whedon, or are from websites already biased to be positive about fantasy/sci-fi/horror. Criticism is needed from more neutral sources, such as newspapers and magazines. Whedon is quoted in the article as saying "Most people just shook their head" or something like that. Who are these people? I'd like to see a sampling of the negative criticism of this article.

This will be a tough one, especially so many years after the show. Check out Hush and The Body, but I'm pretty sure they use the same kinds of sources (and The Body made it to FA status). Not sure what can be done.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have many more print sources. I'm not so picky that I won't promote to GA without them, but to get FA status, this article will surely need them.AstroCog (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any of those books, so I can't do much about this part of the upgrade. You said you didn't want just stuff from Buffy scholars, though, even if they're print sources--do we understand you correctly? I will look for any articles that may be reprinted online, perhaps from archives of mainstream magazines, but that's all I can do. My specialty is prose, so I'll keep working on all matters relevant to the writing itself (inc. the paragraph about "Background"). I hope someone else can get at least a couple of sources. Sorry!--TEHodson 01:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for this point, I'm going to pass you as it is for GA. Whedon scholars are fine to have in the article. However, for neutrality, you need neutral scholars or journalists, print or online. Also, any critical reviews that exist need to be included. All of that would be needed for FA in the future.AstroCog (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't have any of those books, and like you said, those references would be needed for FA quality, but this is a GA review. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Seems quite stable. No major changes for over a month, after a copy edit was done.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Images are appropriate and have fair use rationales. They are also low resolution, which is correct for non-free content.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

However, the images need alt-text.

Will do. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment: Pass. TEHodson and Drovethrughosts are to be congratulated for making good improvements to this article. I know I've been a pain in the ass reviewer, so thanks for being patient with me. Not everybody takes kindly to my nitpicking. I think the article looks better now. Let me know if it goes up for FA review in the future. I'll be in the cheering section, most likely. If you found this review helpful, consider doing a GA review for an article in need. For example, this little article ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]