Talk:Quantico (TV series)

Not English

The last phrase of the first paragraph is not right:

"ABC ordered a full season on October 13, 2015, with an ordered 19 episodes"

The verb order in "an ordered 19 episodes" is... out of order. Contextually, also, based on the linked source (4), that phrase could read: "On October 13, 2015, ABC ordered six additional episode for a total of 19."

Why couldn't I fix it myself? I'm a French speaking Quebecer. Netweezurd (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Premature list of episodes split

In this edit I restored the list of episodes table. There was no discussion prior to the split, and had there been, it might have been pointed out that we don't typically split episode articles off until S2 begins. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To all Indians and Australians edit warriors

Here what I had posted and what has been deleted by individuals from India and a person who claims to be from Australia, but afraid to state its real name. I guess because of a persecution in Australia.

Quantico in the series premiere «Run» mentioned on 34:44 min that the CIA think that the terrorist act on Grand Central Station is tied to Ukrainian nationalists. This part has really offended Ukrainian people who are fighting a proxy war in the East Ukraine with Russia. [39] By a strange coincidence, 2 other American TV series from CBS - Elementary[40] and Madam Secretary[41] also portrait Ukrainian nationalist as terrorists. It raised questions about the reasons behind it - to portrait people who are fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine as terrorists.

Please stop vandalizing my addition to this page and stick to your country TV series. This is an American TV show. America is about a freedom of expression - something that no Indian or Australian has any idea. Socrat1

Reads like soapboxing. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: Do you even understand the meaning of soapboxing? Please, read carefully yourself before posting it here. Socrat1

It is barely vandalism. I have given you the same reason for reverting it twice now: The criticism of the series has not affected Quantico's production, and noting criticism of other series do not relate to this series and hence should not be here. This is not a site that takes only an American view, so there's a certain limit on what you can add; please also remain civil during discussions and do not attack other editors and where they live. (Please sign your posts with ~~~~.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand the issue, don't delete it. Ask first to explain it to you. Especially if you don't live in the country where the show is made. Respect other people opinion. Just because you deleted it wouldn't change the fact. You are acting like you work for a production of this show and defend it at any cost. It doesn't matter if a criticism of the show effects its production. But it offended around 1 millions of Ukrainian-Americans and over 60 millions of Ukrainians worldwide. Socrat1

I understand it clearly - I do not need to live in a certain country to do so. And your point is given - this is merely the opinions of viewers, not critics, that belong to a country which does not use the English-server of Wikipedia. The "opinion" is simply not needed here, as it does not, has not and will not affect the future of the series. Not everything about a series and what people think of it needs to be listed. By the way: It hasn't offended every Ukranian that is currently living, given that not all of them watch it. Obviously. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are vandalized again my post here. Is that how you understand civil? Who do you think you are to discriminate people "that belong to a country which does not use the English-server of Wikipedia." Who are you to decide which critical posts to keep here? Who made you think that you know more about American TV show that me - a real American? Just because you are claiming to live in a country that speaks some English, it doesn't give you any special privileges. Instead of creating something good for humanity you are acting like a paid guard of a disgusted TV series that slides down my country into the state of Idiocracy. Also, make a research on Wikipedia about a section called Criticism on the pages about TV series. Hopefully it will help you to understand what Wikipedia is about. Socrat1

@Socrat1: you read Wikipedia:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: I read, but there is no option to stop harassment and discrimination pointed at me by individual who knows everything better and deletes my critical edit of the page. Socrat1

Read no personal attacks or harassment again. The personal attacks stop now!

Regarding your additions, read WP:NOTSOAPBOX, especially points 1 and 2. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess you can't see any personal attack on me and discrimination by Alex|The|Whovian^? here: "And your point is given - this is merely the opinions of viewers, not critics, that belong to a country which does not use the English-server of Wikipedia. The "opinion" is simply not needed here, as it does not, has not and will not affect the future of the series. Not everything about a series and what people think of it needs to be listed. By the way: It hasn't offended every Ukranian that is currently living, given that not all of them watch it."

You are attacking me and looks like only reason because it's not a mainstream view of English speaking nations. I published a fact - a real fact, and pointed a reference. How it can be soapboxing? Socrat1

Season 1 Episode 22 Description

The Episode 22 description needs an English edit by someone who has seen the episode (I have not seen it yet, sorry). Two examples: "Alex and Ryan finally confront Liam and is killed." (who is killed?) and "Senator Haas, now Madam Vice President shows up at the obituary of Simon . . ." (funeral, not obituary, perhaps?). 99.184.35.28 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Once you have watched it, you are more than welcome to copy-edit the summary. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Splitting episodes list to another page

Second season of Quantico has already been confirmed. With one season as big as 22 episodes, it'd be a good idea to move list of episodes to List of Quantico episodes. Thoughts? ping, Cyphoidbomb Coderzombie (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coderzombie, I'm not very active at this article, but based on my experience it seems a little premature to split. I'd probably wait for the season to start and (of course) encourage that WP:CWW is followed when it happens. You might also float it past WikiProject Television to see what they might say. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Too premature. A split to a separate episodes page is only done once an episode table for the second season can be created, and hence, once a series overview table can be created. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Coderzombie 22 episodes isn't "big" anyway. 22 is normal for a Major English-language commercial network. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cast table

I'll get the ball rolling on this – while I don't have the blanket opposition to "cast tables" that some WP:TV editors seems to, I have been coming around to the idea that they work better at [List of xxxx characters] articles than they do at the main TV series articles.

Thus my suggestion would be to spin off List of Quantico characters into a separate article (esp. if season 2 character outlines are already known), and move the cast table over there. Then simply leave brief character "blurbs" at this, the main TV series article.

Now, discuss... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yeah – the "recurring table" has gots to go. Again, that belongs at List of Quantico characters, though even I demur at tables that massive... That info really generally works better in text form rather than table form for all but the most prominent "recurring" characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Get rid of the table. It's excessively long, adds minimal information and I'm not seeing any actual source on who constitutes a main character versus a recurring one versus a guest one. A spin-off article isn't necessary to me as there's no sourcing about any of the character details so that would just encourage further expansion of that without actual cited information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: Regarding sourcing, the series credits are the primary (and most authorative) source for this. Main cast are those who appear in the opening or get an "Also starring" credit. Recurring cast are guest stars appearing in multiple episodes (though it may be subjective, there is no explicit guideline on where to draw the line). Guest cast are those who appear in only a few episodes (1–2 or a bit more), though usually those should not be listed unless shown to be notable by reliable sources. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Extreme oppose table per multiple discussions at MOS:TV and WT:TV - these exist and have been dealt with, no matter on whether people disagree or not (do note, this discussion takes place while a massive overhaul of MOS:TV is planned). Also, it would be handy if someone reinstated the edits in this revert (including the cast table while this discussion is ongoing, I guess), where the reverted 1) deliberately remove the formatting that was initially (and should still be) required for the List of Episodes page, 2) add unsourced genre changes, 3) reinstate duplicate production information that already exists on the individual season pages, 4) adds a manual series overview to the article instead of transcluding it from the List of Episodes page and hence keeping only one instance of it, 5) adds redirecting links. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose inclusion of cast tables in TV main series articles including this one per MOS:TV - WP:TVCAST does not support use of cast tables. It presents two ways of presenting the cast, and both are prose. Tables have never been supported. I raised the matter of tables at WT:TV in September 2014 (see discussion), and then again in November 2014 (discussion). It was then the subject of a much longer discussion in August 2015 at MOS:TV (discussion). MOS:TV says to use prose and the consensus was not to add support for tables, so they should not be used in main TV series articles like this, although there was tolerance for them in "List of <Foo> characters" type articles. Addressing the tables in this article specifically, they have a number of issues: They lack MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT support, are unnecessarily wide and, more importantly are rather pointless. There are already prose section detailing the cast and characters. The only thing not provided in the lists is season detail. When season information is not included in prose, it is automatically assumed as a general principle that cast members have been the relevant status for all seasons. In the main cast table, 7 of the 10 listed actors have been main cast for both seasons. Only 3 have not. It is far more appropriate to add 3 instances of "(starring season 1)" than creating an entire table just to show that. Season 2 information is not even shown in the "Recurring and guest" table. In order to properly differentiate between recurring and guest cast, it's simply a matter of creating appropriate section headings and sort the cast accordingly. if the status changes for season two, this should be more properly documented in the prose. However guest cast who have appeared only once should probably not even be listed at all. Regardless, both tables are completely unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Note Given that there is now no clear consensus to keep the tables (this is not saying there's no support, but saying that there are editors that both agree and disagree), the article should be restored to the status quo until the discussion is concluded. I would do it myself, but I know that disgruntled editors would end up reverting and reporting me for "edit warring", unfortunately. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Removed To be clear, and FTR, I would actually support including the 'Main' cast table at List of Quantico characters. As I think there has already been some press about season #2 cast and characters – e.g. this on Blair Underwood – it is probably time to consider a 'split out' of the characters (esp. the recurring ones) to List of Quantico characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and agree that, after a few seasons a table might be useful in List of Quantico characters but with the main cast relatively stable for now, I really don't think it would be needed yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Cast tables like that on List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters, now that's handier (could still be tidied up), or the one on the Arrowverse page. A series that's only had one season aired, though, it would be rather pointless. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the placement of the cast section, which is currently after the episode table, I think it should be moved to before the episode table. It is more structurally, and easier for people to understand which actor is playing that particular character whom is mentioned in the season summary and in episode summaries. Thus, by moving the cast section between the season summary and episode table, it is easier to understand who is who. Also, the majority of television show's Wikipedia pages has the cast section before the episode table, for example Grey's Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, The Walking Dead, Homeland and The Big Bang Theory. Twotimer17 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been added to an unrelated discussion. Please continue at the existing discussion at Talk:Quantico (season 1)#Section order. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing Spoilers from Cast descriptions

The current cast listing states the outcome for each character at the end of the season, which isn't necessary on a section which is viewable to anyone who visits the main page. This can be kept to the plot section, which viewers who haven't yet seen the episodes can choose to avoid and thus not have the outcome revealed to them unwittingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.159.173 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER; we do not censor spoilers from any section. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to this section - "Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers". Falling under this description, a section titled 'plot' would therefore indicate that spoilers may be involved, rather than a cast section heading, which should detail the actors, characters, and if necessary, a brief outline which doesn't give away plot details (which by definition should be under 'plot'). Those looking up a cast section don't necessarily expect to have details of this divulged to them. Further, it is not about censoring spoilers, but moving it to an appropriate heading such as 'plot' or 'ending' as the Wiki guidelines suggest, thereby maintaining the integrity of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.159.173 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And I point you to the section stating It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality. There's a massive discussion on this very topic over on the talk page of the Mr. Robot series, where much of this is rehashed. And please sign your posts with ~~~~, rather than relying on a bot to do it. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

However, this is not about deleting information from the article, rather moving it to another section in the article, therefore fulfilling both your criteria (no deletion) and the criteria mentioned above (the presence of spoilers is implied by the section heading 'plot'). Chriswillclark (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please indent the beginning of your posts and sign at the end of it. Thank you. And nothing has been moved or deleted, hence no criteria has been "fulfilled", but given that the plot summaries aren't on this article (rather, they're on the Quantico (season 1) article), moving content from here to there would require deletion from this page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, by not doing anything, no criteria is fulfilled and this is reduced to a zero-sum game. The use of plot details here contravenes the whole concept of having a separate heading for 'cast' and 'plot', which should both feature on the main article, not just exclusively in season specific articles, otherwise the entry is incomplete (a brief overview of the show's entire plot is needed on the main page for a programme, whereby seasons specific plot summaries can feature on their own articles). This offers a resolution which offers a satisfactory response to both stipulations in the Wiki guidelines. You are correct that this has occurred on other pages, and having read the one you mentioned, there is no resolution. Rather, one side makes an authoritative decision without fully responding to the issue at hand. As one user states - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules reminds us that rules aren't laws and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: "written rules themselves do not set accepted practice". Also, "In building consensus, there are times when everyone will argue that such or such change breaks their preferred rule and thus simply *can't* be made. It's a good time to apply the WP:Ignore all rules policy and focus on how the proposed change makes the article better regardless of what the rules say". - I would hope that in this case, this would mean satisfying both parties, thus making the article better though a complete encyclopaedic entry, including all information, and in appropriate locations where every user would expect to see it, not just some. This would be preferable to one user arbitrarily superseding another which seems to be the case elsewhere. 51.9.159.173 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop the bickering and make the change already. Just because you can, doesn't mean you must put spoilers in unexpected locations. While watching a show it is quite common to quickly check who plays a certain character. It really sucks when you do that during episode one, and the plot of the entire season is given away for no apparent reason. Doing this reduces the utility and trustworthiness of Wikipedia, and everybody loses. This has nothing to do with "encyclopedic tone" or "neutral point of view", it is a matter of presenting material in the most useful way. 108.234.224.230 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to leave the spoiler in, can someone at least make it consistent? The plot section says Alex resigns at the end of S1, but the cast section says she was fired.

On the upside, I guess I don't currently know what happens at the end of S1. Morfusmax (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

restructuring due to TVPLOT update

The plot sections of the season articles were recently deleted without discussion by AlexTheWhovian citing WP:TVPLOT. This section of the Manual of Style was updated shortly before, based on this discussion. (The discussion and the changes resulting from it are themselves being discussed here.)

It should be noted that the Manual of Style is a non-mandatory guideline, established to help editors make articles more consistent. Local consensus at each WikiProject and article can determine how it should be applied.

The update to MOS:TVPLOT includes:

• "Just having a plot summary is not allowed". There cannot be a plot summary unless it establishes context for later content on production, reception, themes, etc.
• "An article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary."
• If there is a separate article for the episode list, then the series article's plot summary (overview or premise) should be "around 100 words per season".
• Articles on individual episodes should have a plot summary of "no more than 400 words."
• In addition to plot sections, the lead "should contain a sentence or two to summarize the overall storyline."

There may have to be a bit of restructuring amongst the articles in response to the TVPLOT changes. I'd appreciate opinions and discussion from other editors. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To editors who pass by this discussion and with to contribute, please note that it should be kept to a centralized location, so as the discussion already exists, you should considered giving your opinions of this by contributing to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § TVPLOT reverted. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quantico (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've watched a bit of this show, but haven't been following it for a while, so don't mind being spoiled by going through this. I'll get to the review shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues

Okay, here are some issues that I have found reading through the article that should be addressed before it is promoted.

• In general, there is a strange overuse of colons in this article. Usually, if leading up to a quote, a comma should suffice.
• There are also some instances of the article discussing the source of information, i.e. "In an interview with Vanity Fair" or "The Hollywood Reporter said". You should be focusing on the information, not the source. If the reader wants to know where it came from, they can check the citation themselves. This does not apply to the critical response section.
• I see some inconsistencies with reference formatting. Make sure publications/websites are linked to in each individual citation, that authors are presented with last name and then first name, etc.

• Fixed. Coming to your third point, well, I have linked the sources on their first occurrence. Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is better to link them in each citation because a user will not necessarily read through the citations in order, they will jump straight to the one they want. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• I believe the title card image does not have the correct non-free use license. There is a specific one for TV title cards.
• There are quite a few people listed in the infobox that are not referenced anywhere in the article (composer, producers, cinematographers, editors). These all need citations, and preferably should be cited in the body of the article if they are going to be mentioned in the infobox. Also, is "Barabra D'Alessandro" a typo?
• For the filming locations in the infobox, I don't think it is necessary to list Canada for Sherbrooke as I think Quebec is known similarly to Montreal. Also, it seems standard to just say New York City.

• Done. I have tried to add new information in the development section.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• You introduce the idea that Safran is the showrunner only when he is being replaced. I think it would be better to introduce this in the first paragraph when you are talking about the executive producers, and then mention that Seitzman is taking over with the third season in that bit as well.
• The fact that the series changed from two timelines to just one is mentioned twice in the same passage, with "Until its 35th episode" and "The series switched to a single timeline in its second season." I suggest dropping the former and saying "Quantico initially had two timelines..." then the second season switch line. The sentence describing the two timelines should also be consistent, not using parentheses for one clause and commas for the other.
• Rather than saying the cast "changed significantly", I think it would be better to give a brief recap since the cast of a series is reasonably significant. You can keep the listing of the original cast as it is, and could then just say "Over the next few seasons [such-and-such] left the main cast, and [such-and-such] joined" or something along those lines.
• The jump straight from praise to criticism is pretty jarring. Feels like there should be a "though" in there.
• I don't think the People's choice awards is noteworthy enough to have such weight given to it in the lead here. There only needs to be a sentence, if anything at all, noting that it has been nominated for a few awards and then maybe that Chopra has won a couple.
• The lead mentions the beginning of the first season and the renewal for the third season, but nothing about the second season. When did it premiere?

• Fixed but I think mentioning the cast for every season will make the lead too big.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Overview

• It looks like the plot summary here is just a premise for the beginning of the series. It would be better if there was more of a brief summary for the whole show. MOS:TVPLOT suggests about 100 words per season.

• An user, AlexTheWhovian, had reverted me many times for adding stuff in this section as according to him, we don't need to add everything.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could do a mock up of the summary elsewhere first, and we can discuss it before it is added. You can point Alex to that discussion if needs be then. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is better the way it is. This what the actual premise of those two seasons are. Plus, their premise has been described in their respective articles.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Cast and characters

• The 'Full name "Common name" Surname' formatting is generally reserved for names that are not a commonly used shorter version, meaning Alex is obviously the short form of Alexander or Alexandra so we don't need to explain that. Especially here, it might be more appropriate at a dedicated character article.
• FBI is linked twice in this section, and probably doesn't need to be linked at all given it is linked already in the overview.
• The notes of which seasons each cast member was in is strongly discouraged per MOS:TVCAST. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the information is made clear in the casting section below (and elaborated on at the list of characters article).
• Most importantly for this section, there are no citations. You should have references for each of the cast members and their characters, and ideally for the blurbs about each character as well.

• Fixed but as usual that user removed that source which I gave for the cast.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think it is unnecessary, especially for GA. Also, I would suggest you just bring up the citations you have for their initial casting down in the production section. That would be better than a single overall reference. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Development

• The first paragraph should be copy-edited to not be so quote-heavy.
• "October 13, 2015" could probably just be "October 13". That paragraph has a lot of full dates so avoiding where possible helps with readability.
• Since you note the number of episode for season one and season three, you probably should do the same for season two.
• The paragraph on the racially diverse cast seems out of place. Shouldn't that be in the casting section? There is another paragraph on similar stuff there that it could be joined with.
• The info on Safran stepping down should be written in past tense. Also, the season three premiere info sounds like it would be more appropriate in a release section, not here.

• Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Casting

• The big quote from Chopra about her audition honestly seems more appropriate at her own article or something. It doesn't have much to do with the show.
• The first three paragraphs seem to be presented in a weird order, jumping around in time. A linear explanation of what happened feels like it would work much better. Also, the statement "Casting began in February 2015" is unnecessary; that date could be worked into the content more naturally.
• You should say who was killed off in the first season, so we know who they are talking about in the second season paragraph.
• The third season info should have its own paragraph, not half with season two and half on its own.

• Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Writing

• I think the first paragraph could do with a small copy-edit to make it feel more like it is about a single thing. At the moment, it is all talking about how the character was changed because of the actress, but it feels like different bullet points that have not be properly formed into a cohesive paragraph.
• The line "Safran had plotted an upcoming plot point as the first season ended" either needs to be updated with the actual plot point now that we are well past that point, or removed if nothing notable came of that.
• The quotes on the FBI and CIA could be cut down a bit and paraphrased. The last paragraph also seems like it wants to be part of the season 2 paragraph since it seems to be addressing similar concerns.

• Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Filming

• The first two paragraphs don't need to be separated.
• Can you explain what the production schedules are?

• Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Critical response

• We should not use editorial statements like the one that begins this section. If it is absolutely necessary to state that then it should be sourced, but it is generally fine just to let the scores and reviews speak for themselves.
• There are a few instances where you don't give the name of the reviewer, just the publication or website. These need to have the reviewers' names.
• There is more information on the critical response to the first season than there is at the individual season 1 article. I feel like some of this stuff needs to be moved over there, and then just be more of a summary here. And is there any more stuff from the second season to make it more balanced?
• There should not be that collapsible column table thing for just two listings. And that is something I have often seen in an acollades section instead, so I would consider adding those two there.

• Done but not many reviews are available for S2 and in most articles that column is present in the critical reception section.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ratings

I have a couple problems here, but I'll talk about them in a different section below.

Accolades

• There is no need to have the accolades in prose and in the table. It should be one or the other, and the table is the general format used. This isn't like the ratings table which can be confusing and can't hold all the details so we need to help it with prose elaboration.

• Done but kept a line saying about "the first South Asian actor" thing as I don't think it fits anywhere else.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Release

This is the only structural issue I have with the article—you have two separate sections about the release of the series, and they come after the reception section. It is confusing to have a section called "Broadcast and distribution", and then to take a major part of the series' distribution and put it in a separate section. I highly recommend that the home media info be a subsection of the other one. If you don't like having home media under "Broadcast", then I suggest a "Release" section with the broadcast one and the home media one as sub-sections of that. And all of this should be before the reception section. There cannot be a reception to a series before it is released: critics cannot review it before they see it, and their can be no audience ratings if it hasn't aired. It just does not make sense to have the release info after the reception section. Also, and this is where my comment about the ratings section comes back in, you have to do all the release stuff multiple times in the article because the ratings section doesn't have the context of the release section to help. So you have ended up with release dates in the ratings section and the broadcast section, instead of just noting when the series was aired, and then talking about the rating for those airings in the next section. This is all a pretty major one for the review. When these changes are made, you should add broadcast info for seasons two and three as well.

• Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Status

I am going to put the review on hold while the above issues are addressed. I am of course happy to discuss anything along the way. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Adamstom.97: Thanks for the detailed review. Let me know what you think.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Cool, I've replied above in a couple places. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Adamstom.97: Done with everything and thanks again for your detailed review. I really appreciate it.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy with your responses, and that the article meets GA, so I'll go ahead and pass it. Congratulations. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Season 3 page creation

Shouldn't a season three page be created, now that the synopsis and release date have been revealed? Abbynaive (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A synopsis and a release date do not make an article... There needs to be a real episode table, a production section, cast news, ratings, plot, reception... -- Alex^TW 13:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A draft exists at Draft:Quantico (season 3). -- Alex^TW 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

section header anchor

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm not going to revert this but I assume that, like with most section header anchors, it was added in case someone changed the name of the heading at a later date. I'll leave it because it's probably unlikely someone would change this particular heading name as it's a relatively standard heading for a TV series article but no, anchors in section headers that match the current name of that section are not necessarily redundant. They're future-proofing links to particular sections. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you! Sorry, I assumed that it was automatically redundant. I'm not sure which pages are linking directly to that section, anyways? -- Alex^TW 09:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: yeah it looks redundant at first glance, for sure. As for the question of if anything is linking there... there's no easy way to search for that, is there, other than examining all the incoming links to the entire page? That is, there's no "what links here (section version)", right? If there is, I don't know it. Anyway, I suspect there's unlikely to be any incoming links to that particular section, given its content. I see it more in transit articles, where proposed projects/extensions start with one name and, over the course of years, those projects get renamed as priorities and governments shift, but there are often redirects that link directly to those sections, so having a set ID for the section is quite useful to ensure the redirects to sections don't break every time a name change happens. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)