Talk:The Chase (Desperate Housewives)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article against the Good article criteria. I have already checked it against the "quick fail criteria", and it passes that, so I will now begin the "review proper". This may take me a few days, so please be patient :)

I will be back soon with a complete review. All the best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Hi. As with the GANs I did at Talk:Lovely (Desperate Housewives)/GA1 and Talk:Bang (The Good Wife)/GA1, please provide some WP:CONTEXT and backstory/introduction. You know what I mean, explain that Robin moved into Katherine's because Susan was getting jealous about her living in the same house as Mike; explain that Celia is Gaby's daughter, also that Bob and Lee are homosexual, perhaps; who the Bolens are, what we know about them and Patrick. I'll not go into big details here because I think you'll get what I mean from the other two GANs we did.

Because the WP:LEDE is there to introduce the article, there should be nothing there that isn't elsewhere in the main body of the article. Rather than just the one line "In its original American broadcast on February 28, 2010," in the reception section, the article needs a broadcast/distribution section or paragraph that says which network, date, foreign broadcasts, DVD, online availability, etc etc.

Otherwise the prose is of a good standard. There are no redirects or dablinks. I can't find any typos or grammatical errors, and it is unbiassed in its presentation and content.

References are all from WP:RSes, so I have no issue there, but they do need formatting correctly. TV by the Numbers and TV Squad are websites, and per WP:ITALICS, website names shouldn't be formatted that way so utilize the publisher= fields rather than the work= fields in the citation templates. TV Squad is also italicized in the prose. All external links check out with the EL checker, and I don't see anything that could be construed as being WP:OR.

The article is focused on the subject, which is the episode "The Chase", and covers all major aspects, except for what I've already mentioned regarding broadcasting,. If any other details can be found about production, such as when, where, etc, that would be good, but if it's not available, that's fine.

The lede image requires a stronger FUR to meet WP:NFCC#8. I was also wondering if a better image would suit the article. How about a screenshot of Robin and Katherine in bed together? That is discussed in the prose, in the plot and production sections, and would also help to strengthen NFCC#8.

If the issues I have raised can be addressed, I will happily list the article at WP:GA. It's almost there, and shouldn't need much effort to get past the final hurdle. Good luck! Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pass/Fail: Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed the italics issue, and added a back story section to the plot as per our solution to Lovely (Desperate Housewives). I will try to address the image issue tomorrow and find a new picture, but in the meantime please let me know if you think the plot changes are sufficient. As far as a Distribution section, I was of the belief that since it was determined that Lovely (Desperate Housewives) was not in a position yet for such a section (because of a lack of sources, international broadcasts not being caught up yet, no DVD release, etc.) that the situation would be the same in this case. I'd happily add one, as we did with Bang (The Good Wife), if we were to that point yet, but I'm not sure we are in this case? Let me know your thoughts... — Hunter Kahn 04:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're right regarding a distribution section, but I would like to see it say somewhere that it has aired in Canada on CTV. Perhaps you can move the broadcast date and network to the production section for now. Plot section looks okay now, but as with the other two GANs, if you can get {{cite episode}} templates to cite the backstory subsection, that would be good. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a new picture. Rather than one with them in bed, I went with this one. In addition to the fair use rationale I provided, I thought there were other good reasons for using it -- it was one of the big images used in all the commercials, and just from a photography perspective I think it's a good shot (reminds me of Persona) -- but I wasn't sure it was appropriate to include those in the fair use rationale as well. I'm also still looking for a source on the CTV bit. Haven't found one yet, but I'm sure I will, and I'll add it in. As far as citing the back story plot section, I thought it was already sufficient cited. Is there anything that needs citing that isn't already? — Hunter Kahn 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh! It was very late when I replied and I was pretty tired. I must have missed the references. The image works well. If you can't find a reference for CTV let me know and I will try to look through http://www.pressdisplay.com but it will have to be tomorrow as I have already used up all my credits for today. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had to use Lexis Nexis and do some digging to find it, but I did find an offline source (London Free Press) that had a brief, one-sentence preview of the episode (along with a few others for the weekend) and the date. Let me know if that's sufficient. — Hunter Kahn 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, that's good. Thanks :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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:

   Following the discussions above and subsequent edits to the article, it appears that the article does meet WP:GA? and can be listed at WP:GA. Well done! Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Chase (Desperate Housewives). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209032317/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/18/tv-ratings-sunday-football-boosts-cbs-golden-globes-24-housewives-down-human-target-premiere-solid/39211 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/18/tv-ratings-sunday-football-boosts-cbs-golden-globes-24-housewives-down-human-target-premiere-solid/39211

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)