Talk:Thanksgiving Orphans/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The Plot section needs to be rewritten completely. It is not even close to GA criteria.Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I requested a copyediting at WP:GOCE/REQ. Someone will come around. By the way, Twofingered Typist, may you elaborate? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello George Ho

Here are some examples that I beleive any FA reviewer should have caught:

"serving soup for"

"where beer and television are omitted"

" who decided to hang out with her sister instead who unexpectedly arrived."

"Unexpectedly Diane, dressed as a pilgrim, arrives, revealing that she had gone to the professor's party only to find that she ::had been invited as a domestic help—on finding this out Diane ran out of the party crying."

I hope that this is useful.

Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The reassessment does not require quality to match FAs. Nevertheless, I reedited the section. I eliminated the "soup" and changed "serving" to "feeding". I changed "omitted" to "absent". The run-on sentence that the editor did was fixed; I re-split the sentence into two or three sentences. Any further suggestions? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there George. I do have some further suggestions. When I read the original article I noted several examples of poor grammar and sentence structure and tried to fix a few. Unfortunately, as I am unaware of the plot of the episode in question I couldn't apply fixes to the entire article and now having noted the reassessment do not wish to step on toes by making unsolicited changes to your article. Other issues I have noted include:

The intro notes the lack of choreography in the food fight scene in the same way as was corrected in the Production section (which was changed to the negative article)

Overuse of commas in the entire article - most significantly "At Carla's new house, (as first seen in the episode "House of Horrors with Formal Dining and Used Brick" (1986)), while Woody, Cliff and Frasier watch a football match on television, Norm arrives with a raw turkey for the Thanksgiving supper."

"In fact, Wendy and her sister, who arrives from out of town, do not want to go with Sam to Carla's." - should be past tense.

"Carla and Norm start spewing insults and blaming each other." - "spewing insults" isn't very effective as a wiki article content. Blaming each other for what? These concepts could be joined into a single description. Suggest a rewrite of this sentence to something like "Carl and Norm start blaming each other for the supper fiasco".

"Diane loudly tells them to stop and reflect on their behaviors" - could this be worked on with more specific reference to the episode? Does Diane stand up to shout? Can there be more specificity on what Diane actually says?

"After a while, when the food fight ends, the turkey is finally cooked..." - rewrite to something like "By the time the food fight ends the turkey has finished cooking and they decide to eat what they can."

"Diane re-enters the scene and..." - at what stage did Diane exit the scene? Did she walk out of the eating area after the food fight? Did she miss the end of the food fight or was she unaware of the food fight ending? This seems a little disjointed and comes out of nowhere. In addition, the description itself could be integrated more into the arrival of Vera, which would improve the flow. I would assume that Vera does not enter as the pie is in flight, nor would she have walked straight into Vera's house? Again I am making assumptions as I do not recall the episode.

"after the point where Ted Danson's character Sam Malone hits Shelley Long's Diane Chambers" - I would have thought by this point in the article that readers would/should be aware who plays which character. Would simply linking the character names to their Wikipedia articles be a more appropriate listing?

If you are happy for me to make further changes to the text I'm happy to oblige. :-) Selezen (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You may, but commas are needed for pauses necessarily. --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind; someone else took my request at GOCE and then did the work. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

George, for future reference, "commas are needed for pauses generally" is a common urban myth, but completely wrong. Commas show sentence structure, not pauses. They sometimes coincide, but they shouldn't be confused. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from other editors

I honestly do not think the article as it currently stands is near GA caliber. I would put it as C class. Some basic points:

• The article is 766 words long, of which 451 are plot. That's not nearly enough other material beyond the plot for a GA that is supposed to be broad in its coverage: there's some production information and a few lines of reviews
• Basic information, such as date first aired, network aired on, etc., appears only in the infobox, not in the article proper. There are discrepancies between the two, notably the last name of the first writer
• The lead section does not cover all three sections of the article per WP:LEAD
• The second paragraph of Production is neither clear nor concise
• The Plot section, even after the recent copyedit, still has problems with its wording
• The Reception section deals with "media" (not reviewers?), and all of it is retrospective. Were there no reviews at the time? (There may not have been in 1986, but then it's hard to justify the "well-received" as a general characterization based on a few top ten/hundred lists. And having read the entirety of the A.V. Club review, I'm not sure that "for mainly its food fighting scene" (which needs to be recast) is accurate.

These basically affect the entire article, and the prevalence of prose issues makes me wonder at the original review. The GOCE edit seems to be on hold at the moment, but I think the structural (non-prose) issues are sufficient for this to be delisted, even ignoring the problematic prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I added Nielsen ratings and broadcast date. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I also fleshed out the AV Club multi-author review. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, you have to go by the exact writer credit in the episode. If Cheri Eichen is how she is credited on screen, then that's how it has to appear in the article and infobox, not as a parenthetical afterthought. (I'm not sure how relevant it is that they're married, but that should never supersede the actual credit.) As for the prose, I see that the GOCE has declined your request for a copyedit, probably because of your reversions and extensive edits related to this reassessment while the copyedit was under way. That's going to be a problem, given the pervasive prose quality issues; some of the newly added prose has issues as well, including the AV Club additions. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate which parts need to be fixed? And how is the AV Club summarization poorly written? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, there are simply too many prose issues to describe, and I'm not interested in fixing the entire article myself. (Even if I did, I still believe the article is insufficiently broad in its coverage.) I did do a few basic fixes in the Reception section: your recent edits ran words together and left a three-word partial sentence behind, which is not the level of care needed when trying to bring an article to GA-level condition. As for the AV Club, parts of the new text simply don't make sense—for example, "the characters unleash their passive aggressions and furies", "glaring moments besides the food fight", and "Vera's body appearance". I don't know what "glaring" means in this context, and I don't get a sense that you understand either reviewer's point.

A few other issues:

• In the Plot section, you mention when Carla's new house was first seen. This is not relevant to the plot, and doesn't belong here; it might be worth mentioning in the Production section, but it will need a source citation if so.
• Production: you'll need another source to confirm the "running gag" assertion, since the one used is not sufficient in that regard.
• Reception: was Cheers number 6 of the top 10 shows on Thanksgiving Day? That's what this seems to say, though it doesn't reflect the source information.
• Also Reception: since you stress the bit about Coach here, I think that, even if it isn't otherwise essential to the plot, it should perhaps be briefly mentioned there. Otherwise, it comes out of the blue. (Or you could give it more context in the Reception section—"the characters give grace to the late Coach Ernie Pantusso" is another problematic phrasing—in which case it wouldn't be necessary in Plot.)

—BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought that brief mentioning is tolerable in I Do, Adieu. However, if that article needs reassessment, feel free. By the way, I previewed moving Carla's house thing to Production, and it does not fit there. I don't know whether omitting the reference about first appearance of the house affects the readers' understanding of the plot. The house is the central part of the episode. I eliminated one reviewer; in fact, I don't think I should emphasize the AV Club review too much. As explained in early GA review, the coverage about the production of the episode is very limited. I didn't want to emphasize the reviews a lot. George Ho (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment Closed

A number of editors, including the article's creator, have done extensive work on it. I have just done a copy edit and fixed what I feel are its remaining issues. In my opinion it now meets the GA Criteria in that "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct" which it certainly was not at the start of this process. It should remain as a Good Article in my opinion. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

While I still feel that the coverage is insufficiently broad for a Good Article, this is an individual reassessment and the assessor has decided it meets the criteria. I have also fixed the section header (GARs should only have the one second-level section header at the top of the page; everything else should be third-level or below). I have made additional edits to the article where I felt the prose could still use work, and may make a few more. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)