Talk:Sense and Antisense (Millennium)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 03:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: When writing dates, use the {{start date}} template, only for infoboxes, tables, stuff like that
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: Where is the production code referenced? There should be something at IGN or epguides, or at the very least, the DVD set
Trimmed it out. Not available on IGN or the DVD set, though I might give epguides a look. I'm unfamiliar with it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source for production codes if you'd like to add them back, for more information. Cheers, TBran dl ey 17:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: Where is the running time referenced? There should be something at the iTunes Store
Infobox: Where are the guest actors referenced? Anything at Radio Times, etc.
These two are sourced to the episode itself; much the same as the plot and the starring cast (be a bit weird to take Lance Henriksen based on the episode but not Allan Zinyck or Clarence Williams, to me). GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: Could you cut down the red links? They look weird. Lol.
Looking into possibly creating John Peter Kousakis soon, Zinyk I believe is a reasonably seasoned stage actor and could also be created. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: Pretty sure that crime and thriller are overlinks, thus a violation of WP:OVERLINK
Have removed both. GRAPPLE X
Lede: "premiered" should be "originally aired"
Lede: Only Fox should be linked, without network
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: "some folk". Could you clarify?
Oh shit, this is embarrassing; that was from my work-in-progress draft to remind me to actually add in some folk. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: Add "The show centers on ... In this episode, ..." to second paragraph before plot summary to let viewers know.
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: Summary seems a bit small
Is this still the case with the above addition factored in? That paragraph is now doubled. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: The lede seems to be a little short, and may violate WP:LEDE. Nielsen rating, etc. Considering that, if nothing more can be added, perhaps merge into two paragraphs, because, right now, it seems short for three
As above; the addition of actual guest cast (oops) and a summary of the premise of the series have boosted this out a little. How does it seem now? GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. TBran dl ey 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: "has" is not needed before "received"
Fair enough. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: "mixed responses" seems weird. How about: "mixed reviews"
Rephrased entirely. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: "in its initial broadcast" → "upon its initial broadcast"
Done. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: "in its initial broadcast" where? In Canada, UK, US, France, Germany? (For the record, I know it's the US, just to clarify with some that do not know)
We've already got "It premiered on the Fox network in the United States on October 3, 1997"'; not sure if something needs a reminder only two paragraphs later. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. It can be kept. :) TBran dl ey 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: The paragraphs are really short detracting from the readability of it. Could you merge some paragraphs?
Really? I've merged two but before that there were only five paragraphs and the shortest was still two-and-a-half lines; and I use quite a high screen resolution at that. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Well done! TBran dl ey 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "drug addict" a link?
Linked to Substance dependence. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production: comma is missing after "' final episode"
Was intentional but I've added one. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production: Any image to add? Or something else in article.
Broadcast and reception: Only Fox should be linked, without network
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast and reception: "Nielsen rating of 6.7 during its original broadcast". That makes me think that it earned a Nielsen rating when the episode was airing. Re-write.
...Well it did; the views were gained while it was on air. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course. TBran dl ey 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast and reception: "The episode received mixed reviews from critics" → "This episode generally received mixed reviews from critics"
Added. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast and reception: C+ → "C+"
I'm probably missing something, what's the difference here? GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast and reception: "VanDerWerff found the episode "entertaining". Due to the previous sentence, perhaps add "Despite this," to the beginning of it.
Notes: 1997–1998 should be 1997–98, as per WP:YEAR
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: Link 1997–1998 television season
Which article do you want here? Same goes for below. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References: Ref. 1, 2, 3 - Link the television seasons, then remove the "19"'s from it, as per WP:YEAR. See above.
References: Ref. 4 - I feel that citing/referencing the episode is original research
Just a comment: All the episode's say who wrote/directed them, it's only a different medium. It's not original research, because I, for instance, could get a hold of the DVDs and verify who wrote/directed the episodes. It would be original research if the episode's didn't tell who wrote/directed them, and I added the info based on an email I had with the producer, or info I found from a fansite. My two cents.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto; the episode is being cited for its credits. I could add a book source for this but I don't feel that there's anything interpretive about taking a work's credits at face value. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References: Ref. 5 - Publish day?
Don't have it, I'm afraid. Searching online doesn't seem to be giving me anything for it either. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References: Ref. 8 - Double quotes (") should be single quotes ('), as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS and WP:MOSQUOTE. It is to avoid doubling.
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References: Ref. 10 - Remove "DVD Talk Review of the DVD Video" from title
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References: Red links
As before. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
External links: Or a lack of one. Perhaps add links from IMDb, or TV.com. This can prove that the article is brove in its coverage
Brove? Added a few. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
External links: Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
Got it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this article. In good shape, I will be happy to pass once the above issues are addressed. TBran dl ey 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed or responded to everything; sorry for taking a while to get back to this, been entertaining over the weekend so I hadn't time to sit for half an hour and comb over it. Thanks for taking the time to review it. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fine. Hope you enjoyed your weekend! This article is good now; I fixed the other very minor concerns. Pass. Cheers, TBran dl ey 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]