Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Premiere (The O.C.)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Premiere (The O.C.)

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've managed to get this article to GA in October 2008, and have just fixed any deadlinks it had. I am listing this for peer review to see what work is needed to get this article to FA status. Not having any real experience at FA, any suggestions and common pitfalls to avoid would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Spell out abbreviations on first use, such as WGA in the Lede -Done (I assume I don't need to spell out Digital Versitile Disk :p )
  • "troubled but bright kid" - a little too informal for my liking, WP:TONE Done
  • ""suspended twice for fighting, truancy three times"" -- does this need to be quoted? It broke the flow of the prose for me. Done
  • The plot summary seems a bit long. I know you want to establish things, but it seems a bit too play-by-play
  • "having been brought... Having met..." -- this sounds a little repetitive -Cut "Having met..."
  • "Despite only having three lines in the pilot episode,[12] she managed to make herself a loveable character in the show." Move the reference to the end of the sentence, otherwise it looks OR-ish -Done
  • "Chris Carmack (as Luke Ward) was part of the main cast for the first season,[16] except this episode in which he is credited as a guest star." -- I would lose the bit about the rest of the season, I don't think it's entirely relevant to this article Better now?
  • "whilst" -- too British and archaic for American language. Stick with "while" -Done
  • "while the later" -- latter Done
  • "which incidently was the filming location for a later fight at another party." -- in the same episode? If not, it's not relevant. Spell check on wikt:incidentally, too, though it's not really needed to make the sentence make sense -Cut sentence
  • "adorable".[34] but also" -- punctuation/sentence case -Done
  • "predictable - "There" -- should be spaced endash or unspaced em -Done
  • "She was supposed to be in Vera Wang!"." -- lose the full stop -Done
  • TV Guide is a magazine, so should be italicised -Done, also fixed its wikilink
  • " The All-American Rejects most known hit," -- most known by who? -See below
    • Replaced with "breakthrough hit" something MTV describes it as[1], does that need referencing explicitly.

I'll take another look in the next few days. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the above points apart from plot length. I think that it is currently 526 words long. WP:MOSTV suggests between 200 and 500 words, and WP:WAF says "length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections". Could you give me an idea of how much needs cutting. Because I notice that the Mother and Child Reunion FA you got through has over 700 words, and that double episode (2 x half hr) equates similarly to this 1 hr episode. Many thanks for your input. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was copy-editing the plot, and I encountered this phrase: "they see another side to Newport". Please elaborate. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify. Does this suffice? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I see the infobox uses an image map. I remember that there was a lot of oppose-y discussions about this at a FAC once for an astronomy article (can't find the link), and you should consider if keeping the image map is really worth it, or if it's just an expendable gimmick. The reasoning back then was somehow related to WP:EGG and that the reader expects something different than what he'll eventually get with the image map. – sgeureka t•c 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) -Mapping removed[reply]
  • The parameters of the following should be revised to avoid wrong italics etc. (you need to see this in edit mode): "The location: Holly's beach house". seeing-stars.com. Gary Wayne. Retrieved 2008-07-08. ---> Wayne, Gary. "The location: Holly's beach house". seeing-stars.com. Retrieved 2008-07-08. -Done
  • Nearly all of the FAC'lers will tell you that the youtube link in the External links section is copyright infringement and should be removed pronto. :-) Is there a good reason to have a Television Without Pity link in the EL section? I'd say either use it in the article as a ref (probably in the Reception section) or just get rid of it. -Removed both
  • This is unrelated to this PR, but I notice that the {{OCnavigation}} navigation template is nearly as high as it is wide. Unless there have already been discussions to keep it that way, maybe it should be considered to be widened to make it look less unwieldy. (Just my opinion.) -Widened

– sgeureka t•c 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:LEADCITE and general FAC practice, the lead generally repeats information that appears later in the article. But here, this doesn't seem to be the case with the DVD releases.
    -Done. I have created a new "Broadcast and distribution" section to put this stuff in. Is that okay, or should I have put it somewhere else? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also sections are generally discouraged in FAs. The O.C. (season 1) is already linked in the infobox, so I'd just get rid of it. -Done
  • I'd move the General "Official Recap" of the References section into the External links section (since it's an official recap), and leave the References section purely for the actual refs. -Done

– sgeureka t•c 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(in regards to the Plot section)

  • Why do some characters in the plot section have the actors' names, and others don't? -Done
  • It may sound contradictory to WP:WAF, but nearly all plot summaries that I read for GANs and FACs were written much more in-universe than this article, i.e. no "The episode starts with a cold open...". Just pure plot summary. I'd strictly separate the plot section from real-world info (although the no-title-sequence info is probably fine) and as such would move the tagline info somewhere else in the article, maybe to the Popular culture section -Done
  • "kicks him out" and "stumbles off" may be too colloquial for FAC -Done, I used "expel" and "walked"
  • I tried to reduce the overuse of "who" in the plot summary -Thanks a lot
  • The inclusion of some information in the plot summary does not really make sense, or seems irrelevant. E.g.
    • the two federal agents and the lying -Done
    • "reveals who Ryan really is" - a relative? a felon? -Done, his background
    • "who is no longer welcome at the party" - why? -Removed
  • I removed some overlinked terms, see WP:OVERLINK. For fiction articles, it is rarely necessary to link anything but characters, actors, producers/crew, show names and songs, and awards. -Thanks

– sgeureka t•c 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What makes seeing-stars.com a reliable source? It's used quite a lot here. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say it is reliable. It is a self-published source by someone who has become an expert in that field and gained coverage in relaible third party publications like The Washington Post[2], LA Times [3], Daily News [4]. Actually their is a list of press stuff here [5]. I have verified the one from Chino's Daily Bulletin here as it also states that "The O.C." part of the site "backs up its assertions with photographic comparisons". I don't know how much this all really means to FAC reviewers, but am just doing by best to assert its reliablity. In your opinion does the afforementioned makes it reliable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"with just enough tune out (6.7/10) in the second half hour to lose the lead" Lost me. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's saying that it won the first half hour, but lost the second half hour, which lost it the hour overall. How about "but lost the lead in the second half-hour, receiving a rating of 6.7/10"? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "with just enough tune out (6.7/10) in the second half hour to lose the lead" Lost me. -Done (per above)
  • "The episode was generally received well by critics" You might summarize in the lead the general points that critics appreciated / didn't like.
  • "winning the first half-hour of its time slot." "winning" makes it sound like a match or competition. -Done, "leading"
  • "Casting took place in the few months prior, with casting directors Patrick J. Rush and Alyson Silverberg receiving a nomination for the Dramatic Pilot Artios Award." While the ideas share a common theme (casting), they are not necessarily related enough to warrant being in the same sentence
  • "commented on the large quantity of mail he received declaring interest in the song "Into Dust" by Mazzy Star," Not clear why he received the mail. -Explained
  • "9:00 p.m. (EDT) Tuesday August 5, 2003" "9:00 p.m. (GMT) Sunday March 7, 2004" Are the week-day names really necessary? -Removed
  • "Melinda Clarke knew Savage from Fastlane" Seems trivial. -Removed
  • "Despite only having"-->Despite having only -Done, per the below issue
  • "Despite only having three lines in the pilot episode, she managed to make herself a loveable character in the show." Not seeing the contradiction here. You can be loveable without speaking. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to your question on my talk page, yes, remove the period from Warner Bros because of the double period. Do the same with Time Inc. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these periods. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs
  • There's clunky wording throughout, mostly caused by repetitious wording, for example in the second paragraph of the lead "cast" is used too often.
  • Is "Meanwhile, it is revealed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Marissa's father, Jimmy (Tate Donovan)." integral to the story? Otherwise removing it would improve flow.
  • Could we get more accessible refs for the Amazon/iTunes refs? Like just announcements rather than the product pages?
    • I have only done a fairly basic web search, but there is no mention of it being released on iTunes/Amazon Unbox in anything remotely close to being a reliable source.
  • Can the ratings share thing be explained? I have no idea what that means.
  • It would be nice to have more critical opinions. I'll take a look and see if I can find more newspaper reviews (send me an email and I'll reply with attachments.)
  • You're going to have a hard time defending File:OC-101.jpg per WP:NFCC. Free images of most of the members shown are available, and there's no other aspects discussed that the picture is needed for.
    • I know you're good with images, so I am not arguing with you but would like to discuss this. Currently out of those four actors only one has a free image (judging by the actor's articles). Additionally this is the main family of the show, as introduced in the plot section, and this is the point they enter the fashion show—the main event in this episode. Might it help if I give it a proper image summary box? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending an email now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To echo David's comments, I think that the article needs one full pass by a completely uninvolved editor with copy-editing skills. The roughest section prose-wise is the Plot section, which is IMO the hardest section to write in an episode article. The thing to do is look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and find editors who have experience with Featured articles. Ask them if they will look at the article (it helps if you offer them something in return, like a peer review). It will require a bit of work, but will make your FAC experience a hell of a lot easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...But judging by the sources I found, it would be best to expand the article before a final copyedit :D --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't know the extent of the sources though. You must have found a gold mine! :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information, some through David's sources and some through further investigation on my part. Could someone check these changes for me before I request a final copyedit from WP:TV. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Scorpion0422 - added by Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following exchange took place on my talk page

I gave it a read-through and it looks pretty good. However, there are some parts in the production section that could use some more detail. For example:

  • "Kelly Rowan auditioned five times" - Why did she have to audition five times? Why did they keep letting her come back?
  • "Rush found the role of Ryan Atwood particularly hard to cast" - Why?

As well, this part is confusing: "Melinda Clarke acted as guest star Julie Cooper, originally reading for the role of Kirsten as there were not enough scripted lines for Julie at the time." Why not just say "Melinda Clarke guest starred as Julie Cooper ...." Also, maybe you could add a brief history of the development of the show. Nothing in-depth, just a small paragraph about the concept and such.

All in all, it's a pretty good article. I hope that helps. -- Scorpion0422 00:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Grouped replies:
      • For the mutiple Rowan auditions, it doesn't say and I haven't managed to find out. I found another source to back up the 5 auditions, but that doesn't say either. Should I remove this if I can't explain why?
        • Hmm, no I think it's okay. A little more detail would be nice, but leave it in.
      • I have done the Ryan bit, and reworded the bit about Clarke.
      • Can we discuss the conception as it seems not to be particularly relevent to the episode. It seems more suitable to the main The O.C. article (on my todo list). I know you only requested something short, but in what section would you put it? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just thought a few sentences would be useful to explain the backstory of how the series it self came to be. I thought a lot of pilot episode articles did this, but it turns out that most don't. So, you can disregard my comment if you like. -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Premiere_(The_O.C.)/archive2&oldid=1089069289"