Talk:Pilot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
4. Copyvio Detector at GA Toolbox at top right of this GA Review subpage shows some issues - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Pilot+%28Agents+of+S.H.I.E.L.D.%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
5. Copyvio Detector result is: "Violation Possible 61.5% confidence".
6. In order to address copyvio concerns, please trim quotes and/or remove quotes, and/or paraphrase quotes, such that recheck of those seven (7) problem sources at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Pilot+%28Agents+of+S.H.I.E.L.D.%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- are at least down below 30 percent, each.
7. 2nd paragraph in Casting sect is a tad big, might try breaking up into 2 smaller paragraphs for total of 3 paragraphs in that sect, for ease of reader flow and readability please.
8. Other than that, writing style throughout is generally quite good.

2. Verifiable?:

1. Please wikilink notable publications in citations like Variety, upon my spotcheck -- also for example Entertainment Weekly, but there are a few others, as well.
2. http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Pilot_%28Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.%29 - checklinks tool shows several issues - please fix these by archiving those links with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archivedate fields in WP:CIT templates.
3. Crave Online, is this a reliable source, or does it fail WP:RS ?

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, article is indeed quite thorough, covering major aspects.

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. Please add a bit more to the lede intro sect's third paragraph about Reception info.
2. The lede says: "The episode received a mostly positive critical response" from whom? "found by many to not meet expectations" ... why? From whom?
3. Also, please add a tiny brief mention of the "Controversy" to the lede.
4. But also please retitle the "Controversy" sect to something more specific and less POV than word "Controversy", like maybe just call it Climate group objections.
5. On 2nd thought, that sect is so skimpy it's not really enough for its own sect. Either expand it, or merge it as last paragraph of Critical response sect.
6. 2 paragraphs in Critical response sect are a bit too big, break into four total paragraphs, for ease of flow.
7. Undue weight to "Accolades", too short for its own sect, please merge it to top of Critical response sect.

5. Stable? Article has been stable for at least over one month. I'm seeing some minor issues back in May 2015, not significant enough for good article problems. Article talk page is clear, just shows initial friendly post by Miyagawa, who started the article.

6. Images?: 2/3 images are okay. But here - File:Joss Whedon by Gage Skidmore 4.jpg - please fix this issue "Source: Template:Others" at image page.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Responses

Concerning CraveOnline, I wouldn't necessarily use it for news scoops or the like, especially on this topic, but for our purposes (direct interviews) I feel like it is fine to use. For the controversy and accolades sections, I don't feel like they can fit under the critical response header, so I have tried to come up with an alternative solution, namely merging them together under an other header to indicate that they don't really have much to do with the ratings or critics, but aren't really expansive enough for their own sections. Let me know what you think about this solution, and if you want me to try something else. Other than that, I think I have covered everything you laid out above. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Much better at copyvio detector https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Pilot+%28Agents+of+S.H.I.E.L.D.%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - great job !
2. Checklinks shows no outstanding problems at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Pilot_%28Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.%29
3. Good job fixing Casting sect.
4. CraveOnline - okay that sounds fine.
5. Critical response - suggest just remove all daughter sect headers under Reception. Just one sect called Reception. Then move the Accolades info to top of the Reviews paragraph of that sect (it's only one sentence). The bit about the Rising Tides group can be the last paragraph of one big Reception sect. The Others solution doesn't work, I'm afraid.
6. That's the only final quibble holding this up, methinks.

Great job overall so far, — Cirt (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, I have tried something that is a bit more in-line with what you initially suggested. Let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. Thanks very much to Adamstom.97 for such a polite, professional and cordial demeanor and such responsiveness to my recommendations, above. A pleasure helping with the GA Review process for your nomination ! :) — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)