*Comments GRAPPLE X 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead: "earned a 0.9 rating in the 18–49 demographic". This is the kind of jargon that really needs to be explained; as such I'd trim it out of the lead and just keep it in the article body where it can be given more time and focus.
- Not done. I prefer to keep that there as per WP:LEDE. It should mention every section in lead, including for ratings, critical reviews, etc. TBrandley 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not saying remove all mention of viewership, just that particular quoted bit there. If you don't remove it, then do explain what it means. GRAPPLE X 03:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead: Not sure it's that grokkable to mention the "red" and "green realities before the paragraph which explains them; perhaps rearranging what goes where in the lead could solve that.
- Lead: I'm not convinced "skinny dipping" isn't slang; if there's a relevant link that might help alleviate this a little but perhaps just "swimming" for here and then explain that they're nude when it comes to it in the summary.
- Lead: "as the entry's production code was "1ATR06"." -> I'd skip this bit in the lead; episodes changing order between production and broadcast is pretty common (for a particularly egregious example, one of the leads in Miami Vice mysteriously sports a full beard every other episode of season two). Just mentioning it was aired out of order is enough for now.
- Lead: "to share their love". Maybe "celebrate"; "share their love" has a vaguely innuendo-y (in your end o?) sound to it.
- Plot: Not keen on essentially beginning with an aside. Try "The episode begins in the "red reality", in which Detective Michael Britten's (Jason Isaacs) wife Hannah (Laura Allen) is alive and Michael's son Rex (Dylan Minnette) is dead from a car accident. Two police officers are sitting..."
- Plot: "Meanwhile, in the "green reality" (where Rex is alive, but Hannah is dead)" -> I think we could substitute these brackets for em dashes. I'm not keen on asides in plot summaries as there's already a lot of bracketed text in the form of cast mentions, you see. This one's a straight switch of punctuation but the flow is essentially the same.
- Plot: "and also makes a phone call" -> Why also?
- Plot: After the first instance, you no longer need scare quotes for "red reality", etc.
- Not done. I'd prefer to keep like that. I don't really see reasoning to remove. It's like that in every Awake article, including Say Hello to My Little Friend", FA.
- Fair enough, just seems excessive. GRAPPLE X 03:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot: I might be wrong but given that we title our article on SWAT with the acronym, it might be normalised enough to not need expanding (to be honest, I know what a SWAT team is, but I'd need to stop and think about what a Special Weapons and Tactics team is).
- Plot: Switch "mobster" to something else on each of its uses, it's definitely an informal word. I believe "gangster" may be more formal, but "gang member", "criminal", etc might also work.
- Production: You've two images used here that frame the text on both sides; this is generally to be avoided. Given that the other images are all of people; I'd say keep the location shot and remove Holmes. If there's more meat to come then you might be able to get away with moving the LA image down a paragraph, reducing its size a little, and letting any additional text help keep the two separated.
- Done. For now I've just removed the Holmes picture. But, if I do find more meat (highly unlikely), I'll do what you have said above. Thanks. TBrandley 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Production: Not sure we really need a run time in prose; it's one of those things that's nice to have in an infobox just for completeness but given that teevee episodes generally have standard lengths it's not really adding much here.
- Not done. I'll keep it for now. It is actually mainly there for that reference, still infoboxes shouldn't have references. Still think it can be there for now. TBrandley 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An infobox can contain refs if necessary; they generally don't as the major points in them are often covered elsewhere; things like run times can be sourced back to the actual episode itself, which wouldn't need citing in an article about itself (much like the plot summary doesn't need cited to the episode, for example). GRAPPLE X 03:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Fair enough. Done. Added ref also to the infobox. A reviewer previously requested a source. TBrandley 03:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Production: "It was Chang's and Holmes' first writing credit for Awake" -> Order here is a bit iffy with the two possessives; try "It was the first writing credit on the series for both Chang and Holmes".
- Production: Is the production code all that points towards the episode being aired out of order? If there's plot discrepancies as a result then a review may have picked up on it too; an extra source or so might help this claim as otherwise it seems a little nitpicky.
- Not done yet. Sadly, no. It is normally listed at The A.V. Club; but I guess I wasn't noted this time. There is a Den of Geek source that says that there are all aired out of order. But I don't think that'll really do any good. At the very least, I, guess, I could cite the episode itself. TBrandley 03:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Production: "Isaacs thought it would be funny to show his butt down the stairs" -> perhaps "...to moon down the stairs", but "butt" is far too informal.
- Production: "butt-crack" -> again, try to find a more encyclopaedic phrasing for this.
- Done. The new one was the best I could find/do. TBrandley 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Production: Is there maybe a brand-neutral term instead of "Scotch Tape"?
- Themes: "However, the Brittens later decided not to move to Oregon in "Slack Water"" -> ditch "to Oregon", it's a bit repetitive.
- Themes: "but each episode "feels like it's own separate story"." -> If this "it's" is in the source, mark it with {{sic}}
- Themes: "Caroline Preece of Den of Geek initially "[assumed] this random nakedness will tie in to the show's central mythology"" -> move the "assumed" before the quote since it's already an insertion anyway.
- Reception: I'm noticing a bit of inconsistency in terms of WP:LQ; generally I'd say keep all terminal punctuation outside of the quote marks just to be sure.
- Where/what is the issue? Can't really understand. TBrandley 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you quote something, sometimes you end the sentence inside the quote ("Just like regular chickens."), but sometimes it's outside ("Just like regular chickens".). It's a bit jarring to see both. The former is only correct if the punctuation is there in the source; the latter is always correct, so it's better to go with that as it allows for uniform consistency. GRAPPLE X 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- K. Thanks! Done for all full sentences of quote. TBrandley 03:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reception: " Sepinwall praised Jake's actor, Lawrence, praising his appearance on the Awake episode." -> repetition of "praised".
- Thanks for reviewing! I've addressed all of the issues, or commented above upon them. Cheers, TBrandley 03:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
