Talk:Grey's Anatomy season 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be picking up the review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to read through the article and list any existent issues below. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues

• The first sentence of the page: There should be a comma before and after "Grey's Anatomy".

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also, in the first sentence, remove "its".

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The lead should include another paragraph or two, talking about the reception and maybe cast/production a bit, because the lead should be a summary of the page.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Partly done Good, but please space out the large paragraph into two or three different ones, separated by a blank line. TRLIJC19 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The crew section is not referenced and is very short. Find references and consider merging the crew section with cast.

 Done I have added the crew as a subsection to "Production". I believe this is better that creating a "Cast and crew" section. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Partly done Good, but reference the crew section. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have added a reference to the crew section. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence of crew, erase the parentheses around "currently ABC studios", and use commas.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Under cast, if you are going to credit Burke as the head of cardio, credit Derek as head of neuro. Also, use "chief", instead of "head", because that is their formal titles.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reception should be broken down into different subsections. The first subsection should be "Critical response". Get more info on ratings, and make a subsection for that, which will be the second subsection. The third subsection should be "awards" or "accolades".

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of reception, after "as", there should be the word "the".

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Second sentence of Rec., use a comma after Rhimes.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Under Rec., in this sentence, " The season received positive critics and reception", 'critics' should be critiques.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• You may want to say "the season opened up to generally positive reception" and cut out critiques in whole.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Find articles reviewing the second season, many are listed at Metacritic, and include the bad ones too to maintain the neutrality. You cannot just say that the season received positive reviews, and not give any. One of the requirements of being a good article, is being broad in coverage.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Remove this sentence, "The second season received generally positive reviews from critics and fans.", as it is repetitive.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• In this sentence under reception, " In 2006, casting directors Linda Lowy and John Brace won the award for "Outstanding Casting for a Drama Series".", specify what they won the award with. I.E. Emmy, Golden Globe, etc.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the third paragraph is a bit random and should be placed under critical response.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the second paragraph should be part of ratings subsection.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• In this sentence, "At the Screen Actors Guild Awards, the cast were nominated for "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series".", "the cast were nominated" should be "the cast was nominated".

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• In this sentence, "Krista Vernoff received an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series) for the sixth episode of the season.", erase the parentheses after drama series.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The episodes section should be the first section of the page.

Idea: You wrote "The order of the page should be lead, episodes, production (if applicable), cast and crew (merged if no more information is found), reception with critical response, ratings, and accolades, and then dvd release.". I have made edits so that the order was the one you proposed, but if we place the "Episodes" section after the lead section, there will just be blank space near the lead infobox, as the episode table will begin immediately under the lead infobox. What do you say? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC

 Done Okay, leave as is due to blank space. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• A production section would be useful if you can gather enough information.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC

• Expand reference 2.

Not sure I don't know what to "expand a reference" means. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It means to not just have the bare URL there, you should add more information to the reference such as author, date, title of article, etc. Look at the other references for what it should be like. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've expanded the reference for you, as you said you do not know how to. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The order of the page should be lead, episodes, production (if applicable), cast and crew (merged if no more information is found), reception with critical response, ratings, and accolades, and then dvd release.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am putting the review on hold so the nominator can assess the problems. This is a lot of adjustments to be made, but I believe if you want to dedicate enough time you can do it within the time limit. Please fix these issues within seven (7) days and then I'll continue on with the review. If these issues are not fixed within the limit, then the nomination will unfortunately have to be failed. To make it easier for me, I would prefer that after you fix each issue, you put the "done" template ( Done) ({{done}}) after it or the "not done" ( Not done) ({{notdone}}) template but explaining why you didn't make the change. Looking forward to finishing the review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed every issue. Is it alright if I remove the "on hold"? I hardly wait to see if the article gets promoted. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding how good article nominations work. The nominator, you, nominates your article. And then a user who has not helped write the page, reviews the article. I saw on GAN that it needed reviewing, so I decided to review it. The reviewer lists issues and then does the review, deciding if the article will be given good article status. There are no other users involved in deciding. Once all issues are fixed, I will review the article and post the outcome. The nominator, you, is in no way allowed to remove that the article is on hold. Only the reviewer, I, can do that. Good work fixing the issues, but you have yet to merge crew with cast, space out the lead, or expand the reference I told you to. Do that, and then I will start the review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So that means that you decide whether this is a good article or not? I have added the crew as a subsection to "Production". I believe this is better that creating a "Cast and crew" section. You have already expanded the reference. I have spaced out the lead. You can now start the review. Thank you. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I decide as I am the reviewer. Good job with everything, and I will start shortly, but I would like you to find references for the crew section. Also, I personally do not mind, but in the future, I would advise you not to direct the reviewer of the GA you nominated as it can be a bit irritating for some users. By this I mean doing things such as telling the reviewer to start the review. The reviewer is in charge of the GAN, not the nominator. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So, that means, that if one article is a GAN, I can be the one to decide whether they are worthy of the title? But what happens when nobody reviews it? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, you can review an article, if you haven't made substantial edits to it. But it is not recommended to review an article unless you fully understand the process. If you review without knowing what you're doing, most likely your review will be terminated. For example, I didn't write this page at all, so I can review it. But if you wanted to review let's say Meredith's page, you wouldn't be able to because of how many edit's you've made to it. If you tried to, the review would be terminated. And about no one reviewing it, the GAN always has a backlog and many people don't have their articles reviewed for months after nominating. When I nominated Grey's Anatomy, I had to wait three months for a reviewer. But, they all get reviewed eventually, it just may take a while. If you're interested in GAN, I would read WP:RGA and understand how they work. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job with fixing all the issues. I had to expand four more references. You should really get out of the habit of using bare urls for citations. You need to include more information in the citation. But everything is done, and I will now start the review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

With all issues having been addressed, the article now meets the good article criteria and is being promoted to good article status. Great job to the nominator for their work on the page and review. Happy editing! TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)