Talk:Fagel Attraction/GA1

GA Review

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

This article is in great shape. I only have a few comments that I'm sure will be easy to address...

Plot

• I've never seen this episode, so I was confused as to why Will said Gavin was "barking up the wrong tree" if Will also liked Gavin. Did he reject him because his friend Jack doesn't like the guy? Or another reason? Could you add this here?
  • After Jack tells Will all the "weird" stuff about Gavin, Will decides to have a "little fun" with him. So, he makes Gavin believe he's interested in him, saying "I'm barking up the wrong tree". Here's the transcript. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Production

• "opted to turn Douglas' image upside down." This should not be in quotes because it's not from a W&G executive or one of Douglas' people or anything, it's from the prose of the news article. You should paraphrase this instead, to something like "...and the sitcom's executives sought to work against Douglas' image."
  • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Same with ""stretch a bit beyond his usual roles". This would be easy to paraphrase, something even like like "...wanted him to stretch beyond his usual roles" would be fine.
  • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception

• "In 2002, he was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award in the "Outstanding Guest Actor in a Comedy Series" category for this episode." Maybe it's just my preference, but I'd like to know who he lost to. Is that something you could easily add? If you don't want to I'll let it go, but even just a brief mention I think would be good...
  • Done. Theleftorium 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• "A television reviewer from Deseret News said Douglas should give his Oscar back for his role on the show..." This reads as if he won an Oscar for this show. I'm guessing what he really means his role in this show was so bad, he should give back the Oscar he previously won? Could you reword it to be more clear?
  • Reworded a bit. Better? Theleftorium 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll place the article on hold for now... — Hunter Kahn 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nicely done, guys. That's a pass! — Hunter Kahn 18:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review, Hunter. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)