Talk:Siren (Millennium)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

No images used in article at time of inspection, so no issues here.

Next, on to Stability assessment. — Cirt (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Article talk page shows no problems.
2. Upon my inspection of article edit history, no issues going back over one year.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 12:02, 19 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 19, 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. I know it's a short article, but a one-sentence-long-paragraph in the lede is a bit too small. Would like to see at least two paragraphs, of at least 3 sentences each, per paragraph.
5. Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Siren+%28Millennium%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - copyvio unlikely - THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE ! GOOD JOB HERE ! NICE !
6. Plot - please change sect header to Plot synopsis.
7. Broadcast and reception - please change to Release and reception.
8. Lede sect should have brief summary of entire Plot synopsis, from beginning/middle/end.
9. Currently lede sect contains no info at all from summary of sect Broadcast and reception.

2. Verifiable?:

1. I like that your Footnote is cited at the end of it, nice job here.
2. Millennium: The Complete First Season (booklet). David Nutter, et al. Fox. - this does not seem like enough to satisfy WP:V. Year of publication? Does it have a OCLC number? Can you standardize the citation using WP:CIT templates?
3. Checklinks tool results -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Siren_%28Millennium%29
4. As the article is so small, can you please archive all links to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate ?

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. Article comes off as a bit skimpy. Any chance you could try to expand the Production sect, perhaps with some additional secondary sources or even DVD commentary ?
2. Pretend the reader has never heard of Millennium or The X-Files. Recommend adding a sect, Background, at least briefly explaining some context to further ground the reader in the subject matter before the reader gets to the Plot synopsis. Editor 23W did a nice job with this after similar recommendation, at article Bad Timing (Adventure Time).

4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in a neutral tone and matter-of-fact wording, throughout.

5. Stable? See above, no issues here.

6. Images?: See above, no issues here.

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) 22:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quickly-begun review. I have amended the section headings, expanded the lead, added some further citation info for the DVD booklets and archived any urls (I didn't archive Highbeam as it's essentially an archive URL for a print source already). I also added some context on the show's premise to the plot, I didn't think there was enough material for a whole heading (the premise is simply "Man investigates millenarian crimes, growls some"; come the following season there's a bit more backstory to refer to, however, but it's very story-of-the-week oriented here). but I can re-arrange it to the start of the section instead if that would work better. Unfortunately there is no more information I can add for the episode's production; it isn't mentioned on the DVD set's "making of" feature, and although there was a retrospective book about the making of the series published recently, it doesn't go into this episode either. Normally I would pad it out with some information about casting, as often actors in the series were re-used or at least appeared in related shows like The X-Files or Space: Above and Beyond, but again that's of no use here. It's a bit of a bummer. GRAPPLE ^X 09:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Have you had a chance to consider suggestion 3, above, just as an optional only idea to consider as a suggestion, to help the Wikipedia community by clearing the backlogs and paying it forward ?
2. Take a look at Premise sect here Forever_(U.S._TV_series)#Premise -- they do a pretty good job in grounding the reader with some basic background info.
3. Still feel a teensy weensy bit of background info would be useful about the series, in general, for the reader, before getting to the plot material.
4. Thanks for changing the sect headings, looks much better.
5. Checklinks tool revisited analysis looks much better as well.
6. Booklet citation now looks excellent, thank you.
7. 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph of lede sect is a bit too long. Could be split apart.
8. Each paragraph of lede sect could be one more sentence in length and would help ground the reader much better before getting to article body text.

Great job overall, only a few more tweaks and responses necessary, to above, and then update, below. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done a little more re-arranging now, and will commence reviewing other articles during the day here. GRAPPLE ^X 09:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to recommendations from GA Reviewer, above. — Cirt (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)