Talk:Normal Is the Watchword/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 04:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. Comments should come soon. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions that you might like to ponder:

Lead
  • It summarizes well the article and is accessible to readers who are not familiar to the series;
  • You don't need to call Rob Thomas by his full name twice; and you shouldn't repeat the interlink.
  • done
Synopsis
  • I know in English language it's preferable to have short sentences than long ones. However, I guess the first two ("It is one day before senior year. Veronica is working a job at a restaurant.") can be reduced into something like "One day before senior year, Veronica is working a job at a restaurant.";
  • done
  • "Veronica sees an interview with her father" - you could add his name, because I was wondering who was Keith until reading the MTV source;
  • done
  • "We then flash back" - I think we should not use "we" per MOS:FIRSTPERSON, and it also sounds a bit informal. How about something like "The episode then flash backs"?;
  • done
  • cliffhanger should be linked here (because it's its first occurrence), not in "Arc significance"
  • done
  • "Next thing Logan knew, he woke up..." - I would replace the comma with a colon, or add "is that", or perhaps remove "Next thing Logan knew" and use something like a "then";
  • done
  • "Wallace (Percy Daggs III) says that he failed his drug test too and that Meg (Alona Tal) also failed her test." - Can I suggest "Wallace (Percy Daggs III) says that he and Meg (Alona Tal) also failed their drug test too."?;
  • done
  • "we flash back to show the details" - the same from another suggestion;
  • done
  • "Veronica talks to Meg, with whom she has had a falling out." - "Falling out" should be avoided per WP:IDIOM;
  • 'Replaced with estranged
  • "Logan hangs out with Dick" - The same from above, although I guess it's more difficult to replace this one;
  • Replaced with sunbathed--that's what they're doing
  • done
  • @Gabriel Yuji: I've cut it down to 540, but this episode has a relatively complex plot that also functions as a kind of ending to the first season finale. BenLinus1214talk 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arc significance
  • Not a common section on episode's article. I can't remember if there's some guideline on it so I would have to ponder more to say it's not valid. However, if you feel it's relevant I'd consider "demoting" it as I remember Doctor Who episodes usually have a similar section titled "Continuity" (see: Boom Town (Doctor Who) or The Rings of Akhaten, for examples).
Music
  • Not sure if the information of section is even relevant. However, if you think it's, it should definitely be moved, as MOS:PARAGRAPHS says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".
Production
  • You don't need to repeat Reid's full name;
  • done
  • You don't need capital letters on "the shocker";
  • done
  • "which slipped past the UPN censors" - WP:IDIOM;
  • done
  • "Rob Thomas informed actor Teddy Dunn" - only "Thomas" is enough / WP:Repeatlink for Dunn (already linked in the "Synopsis");
  • done'
  • "planning to write out the character" - WP:IDIOM;
  • done
  • I'd reorder it a bit; I'd group the parts about the second season ("When it was renewed..." and "Starting in the second season ... would be the perfect retort"), the parts about the episode's title ("The episode was originally titled..." and "The episode's title refers..."), and the information about cast and crew of the episode ("The episode was written by ... in the part", the cameo part, and "The cast members did not know..."). It's up to you but I guess it would be somewhat more logical.
  • done Oddly, I got most of this information after I first published the article, so that's probably why it's a bit jumbled. BenLinus1214talk 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "However, this ratings high would be surpassed by 'One Angry Veronica'." - Source?;
  • done
  • I noticed it's a common practice to add Television Without Pity's scores in television episodes (not only within VM episodes), so if you think it's fine you can keep it. However, I wonder how it improves the article quality or gives the reader some useful information…
  • The way I see it, it's just another review-esque rating from a notable online publication, so I think I'll keep it. :) BenLinus1214talk 03:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Veredict

The article is well written and well sourced, and it's very close to GA. My concerns are usually minor stuff related to prose and some guidelines. Two sections feel somewhat unnecessary and if I would have to elect a "major" problem it would be the plot, which is over 100 words (which is not that much) the recommended. Nice job, Ms! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I believe I have answered all of your comments. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns! :) BenLinus1214talk 03:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, BenLinus1214, I've just passed it. Congratulations! (PS: On a last note, I'd only like to ask you for some consistency on italicizing publications. The A.V. Club, TV.com, Television Without Pity are, while PopMatters, BuzzFeed, and TVLine are not. What was your rationale on using or not italics?) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think about it, probably all web-only publications should not be italicized. BenLinus1214talk 12:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Normal_Is_the_Watchword/GA1&oldid=1137049259"