Talk:A House Divided (Dallas)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A House Divided (Dallas)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 12:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

• Intro: While the "Who Shot JR?" is very important, I would move it to the end of the first sentence and not right in front.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Intro: Can you link 'second season'?
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Overview: This entire section would probably be better suited as part of the reception section, as it talks about all the hype and ratings surrounding the episode
  • Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Overview: What does the 6 to 4, 3 to 4, etc mean? Maybe explain this
• Overview: "some oddsmakers" who are "some"? Again, who are "others"?
• Background: This section should be condensed into prose. I find those bullet points to be rather off-putting. I think something like this (the "Background" paragraph) would be excellent
  • That FA would be a bit much to shoot for, but I have converted the bulletpoints to prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Regular Cast: Again, this doesn't look too aesthetically pleasing to my eye. Try to match the above article and condense the names into prose, cite them using the episode, and merge them with production.
• Speaking of production, is there any info out there on the production of the episode? A production section is kind of integral to a television article. This would be the kicker for this article. I feel that a substantial production section is very much necessary, but this one doesn't have one
  • It is hard for me to tell what happened, but it seems that people were like DAMN. Someone shot J.R!! Who did it?, then someone's lightbulb turned on and this hysteria started. I don't see anything suggesting that this was a plan. I saw one article in which Hagman said something to the effect that Someone on the crew said if everyone hates this guy so much why don't we just shoot him and then they did. I almost get the feeling that it was a run-of-the mill finale until people got excited about it. I am just not finding anything about it before it happened.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Plot: Is it necessary to specify Day 1, 2, 3, etc?
  • It provides some organizational basis. That is all. Otherwise the paragraphing would seem fairly random.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Plot: I don't think it's necessary to state how much the money would be worth today
  • I think it is. It is not really monopoly money. It was an amount of money that had context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Plot: "J.R. had swindled most..." Did J.R. do this in the episode, or was it prior? The tense confuses me.
  • From what I understand, the paperwork was signed in a prior episode, sealing the deal. The nationalization may have even occured in a prior episode, with this episode just being focussed on the fallout from the nationalization. Had swindled is intended to imply that the transaction occured before this scene which was the start of this episode. I.e., it happened in a prior episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I just found something that fills a lot in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I apologize that I can not find the story that the idea to shoot him came from a member of the crew. However, how many types of mysteries could there be.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Reception: "leadin" Should have a dash between 'lead' and 'in'
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are the issues. The production one and the organization are the main ones, however. I'll put it on hold.--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot better now. There's still a few spots that need citations though. For instance, the last sentence of both the first and last paragraph under the "reception" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the first example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done my best to cite the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's properly decent now. Passing! :)--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A House Divided (Dallas). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812130301/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/News2005/mar05/mar21/1_mon/news3monday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/News2005/mar05/mar21/1_mon/news3monday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)