Wikipedia

Talk:There's More Than One of Everything/GA1

< Talk:There's More Than One of Everything
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Iazyges in topic GA Reassessment

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Matthew RD 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I shall conduct this review. -- Matthew RD 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is how the article fairs against the GA criteria

  1. Well written: See notes below
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Passed
  3. Broad in coverage: Plot a but too long, but it is confusing so I'll let you off the hook. Passed
  4. Neutral: Passed
  5. Stable: Passed, yes
  6. Images: Passed? See notes below

OK everything checks out fine, apart from these few irks;

  • The infobox image; the tags check out fine, but it looks of shoddy quality (as if someone took a picture of it from a camera in front of the TV screen, so I'm not sure if that would be the best image, or maybe move back to the first one and make it smaller)
  • "is the twentieth episode and season finale of the first season", best to say just season one finale or first season finale.
  • "was watched by more than 9.28 million viewers." Seems quite a specific number for more than (unless it was 9.2 or just nine), so say just 9.28.
  • "As Bell as been communicating these past few months "strictly electronically"." I take it you mean Bell "has" been communicating.
  • Isn't disk supposed to be spelled with a "c" instead?

Also, I must apologise that I currently have a shitty internet connection (works fine for a little while then halts suddenly for potentially hours at a time) so if I don’t respond to your responses quickly enough, then that would probably be the cause. -- Matthew RD 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you for the review. I edited accordingly to most of your suggestions, and tried to upload an image with less of a blur (not sure if it's an improvement or not). Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's_More_Than_One_of_Everything#Plot has no citations. It should really be cited before it gets passed on that. "but did not receive any nominations." is also not cited. --LauraHale (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Plots do not need citations, per WP:TVPLOT, which states;
"Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." -- Matthew RD 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I added a citation for the lack of emmy nominations. Also, I was about to cite WP:TVPLOT myself. Thanks Matthew :) Ruby2010 talk 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'll pass it, good job. Also, seems like my Internet's back. -- Matthew RD 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago48 comments4 people in discussion
Procedural keep, 12 year old GAR; article does appear in good enough shape for a normal GAR keep, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:There's More Than One of Everything/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. and
    (c) it contains no original research.

The article fails Good Article status on because of this. The plot section is not verifiable. (The guidelines do not support a conclusion that plots do not need to be cited and these citations should not be hard to find.) In at least two cases, I've found where the sources do not support the text of the article. For instance, the section that says the episode is the season finale and that there were a certain amount of viewers had one citation. The citation was correct for the total number of watchers. The citation did not cover the fact that the episode was the season finale. In another case, the source described the newspaper. The source did not state that this was proved the person was actually alive in this universe and was removed. These need to be fixed and all other citations need to be verified to make sure that they support the text. --LauraHale (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • As was stated in the first GA review, television plots do not need to be cited unless they list controversial information up for interpretation. As other Fringe viewers have found no issue with the article plot, it clear that it is alright. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television)#Plot section, Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. Also, every single source states the episode as the season finale. It is a common fact. I didn't think that particular sentence had to be cited like the others, but I can easily add one if you deem it necessary (silly as the request is). Every other single sentence is cited. If there is no reference directly after one particular sentence, it means it is cited in the next reference (as I think it's silly to use the same citation for, say, three sentences in a row). Ruby2010 talk 04:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Checked the summary and you are right about it not needing a citation. The section is 683 words, which is longer than the 250 to 500 word guidelines. So either the section should be cited, or the prose needs to be fixed to make it shorter. There are also flow problems in the text. Example: (she had taken precaution of having body-armor implanted under the skin of her torso). That disrupts the flow. "(though the camera cannot see the gravestone's writing)" This also disrupts the flow. If this can't be seen on the screen, why is it in the text? The wording isn't clear, beyond the flow being disruptive.
The other material still needs citation. The citation that follows suggests that the citation covers the whole paragraph. If there are two sentences and the citation follows the second, it implies that the citation covers both. If the citation does not cover both, then separate citations need to be created for that. This problem exists for large chunks of this article, with the citation being inadequate because the citations do not support the text. Either 1) Find a source to support the text, or 2) Remove the text that cannot be supported by the existing citations. My suggestion on your talk page about citing every single sentence was just a suggestion, as it makes it easier for both of us to know what exactly the citations are related to. I'd rather not have to pick apart every sentence to make sure that the citation for the section supports what the citation claims. Given the citation problem, easily found when two of those citations were randomly checked, this probably needs to be done as the reliability is suspect. --LauraHale (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm confused where there are any citation problems. I just did a read-through of the article, and everything in the production, cultural ref, and reception sections are cited. Could you indicate which sentences you mean? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 05:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I attempted to fix the plot and make it smaller, but am admittedly not very good at summarizing (as I feel all the details are important). As the original reviewer agrees that the season finale's plot is too intricate to be properly minimized further, I think it should be fine the way it now is. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 05:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you are not good at summarizing, I would encourage you to find another Fringe fan to help summarize."(she had taken precaution of having body-armor implanted under the skin of her torso)" is still in the summary. By putting things in (), it disrupts the flow. This needs to be removed or integrated into the article. You may also want to put it into a footnote. If you want, I can put all things in () into foot notes, which are different than references and display in a second section. I can also try to help you with summarizing the article. I'm just hesitant to do so, because I've never seen an episode of Fringe. --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The review section needs to be rewritten. It does not flow as prose. It reads as a list: Review says. Next reviewer says. Third reviewer says. The flow in the paragraph can use improvement. Emmy consideration should be in its own section as that isn't a review issue. That is an awards issue. --LauraHale (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll fix up the review section and address your other concerns in a bit. Ruby2010 talk 04:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

More things requiring work

  • "the much-referenced character of Massive Dynamic founder" Who referenced this character a lot? The wording is unclear.
  • "but the writers changed their minds as the show progressed." The source does not say the writers changed their minds. The writers are not referred to here. If the writer is Abrams, change the wording to reflect that.
  • "it was announced that" Who is it? Who made the announcement?
  • "He and Fringe creator J.J. Abrams already had a relationship after working together on the 2009 film Star Trek;" Source does not say they worked together in 2009, nor that the Star Trek movie was released this year.
  • The year was included to help identify it (as their have been many Star Trek movies over the years). That it was released in 2009 is common fact, and I think it is completely silly to demand the source state the year of it's release. Ruby2010 talk 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is not common knowledge. I did not know it. "The sky is blue" could be considered common knowledge. This isn't related to that. If you want this article to maintain its good status, you'll need to cite this information or remove it. --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • ""essentially started begging" " This is a quote and it needs to immediately be followed by with a citation.
The quote is not cited. Every single quote in this article outside the summary needs to be immediately followed by a citation. If you want this to pass reassessment, this is key. --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "intriguing and interesting" is in quotes and needs to immediately be followed by a citation.
It is a quote and needs to be cited at the time of the quote. As there are issues regarding the sourcing elsewhere, where the text does not match with the citation, it really, really needs to be cited there. Besides that, every time that you quote something, you're supposed to cite it. To pass this reassessment, you're going to need to cite every single quote at the point of the quote. If you feel the mid-sentence citations disrupt the flow, you may want to reconsider using quotes and instead paraphrase. --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I edited per your suggestions. I also removed the citation tag in the plot section (my explanation is given above and in the summary). Ruby2010 talk 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "it appeared that the truck had been "cut" in half after unsuccessfully entering the prime universe doorway." Appeared is kind of weasel word. Was it cut in half or not? If it was, say that. If it wasn't, say that. Maybe something like "The viewer is led to believe the truck was cut in half". --LauraHale (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "beginning with the season finale." This statement is not supported by the source. The source says that he was hired to appear in three episodes. The source says he appears in the finale. The source does not say if this was his first, second or third episode. Thus, a citation is needed that lists the episodes in order with this one beginning with the finale. I've fixed sources around it, so this problem statement is isolated. --LauraHale (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "Fringe co-creator Roberto Orci" Robert Orci is described as one of the show's writers in the source. He is not described as a co-creator. A source is either needed that cites him as a co-creator, he needs to be described as a writer or he does not need to be described. --LauraHale (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Seriously. It is common knowledge that Orci is the co-creator. Like another user said before, the episode credits list him as such. Thus it does not have to be directly cited. Ruby2010 talk 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The production section feels overly reliant on telling the story through people. Example: "Co-creator and executive producer Roberto Orci explained in an interview that the big reveal at the end of the episode, in which Olivia meets Bell in the parallel universe, was actually planned for a fourth season, " This should probably be shortened to "Roberto Orci said the scene where Olivia meets Bell in the parallel universe was actually planned for the fourth season". You've already explained who Robert Orci is and what his role is. It doesn't need to be repeated. You don't need to say that Robert said this was done in an interview. Your citation has already said that for you. There are several other examples of this in this section, where the wording could be shortened and the point made more succinctly. --LauraHale (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The production section feels overly reliant on telling the story through people.. This is common of other episode production sections. It helps understand the effort put into the episode if I add direct quotes from the people involved. I think this particular paragraph looks fine, but thank you for the suggestions. Ruby2010 talk 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • filmmaker Brad Anderson. The source does not refer to him as a film-maker. The adjective needs to be removed, or a citation needs to be found that identifies him this way. It is simpler to just remove this non-supported adjective. --LauraHale (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Again, Anderson has directed films in the past. He is thus commonly known as a filmmaker. It would be silly to remove this simply because the source fails to call him this. Afterall, I have another person in the article called "Academy-Award-winning," which is also common knowledge. Ruby2010 talk 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "Responding to possible criticism over their choice in depicting the World Trade Center in the parallel universe" Source does not support that. Source suggests that the criticism was internal, not in response to the possibility of external criticism. Needs to be reworded, cited or removed. I would suggest removal and rewording to something like: Pink considered the implications of depicting the World Trade Center in the parallel universe, but chose to do so because the building "obviously very iconic"[citation needed] and it best displayed that in the parallel universe, "things are both better and in some ways worse. It's just different choices, the road not taken" --LauraHale (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "J.J. Abrams called the finale "a huge turning point"[citation needed] for all three main characters." What does this have to do with production? I might move this to a separate section on character development found in the episode. Is JJ Abrams's opinion important here? It might be simpler (and certainly easier to read) if it said "The episode was very important in terms of character development for all three main characters." --LauraHale (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Again, this is common in other episode production sections. The co-creator of the entire series calling the episode "a huge turning point" is very important, and should be displayed in the article. Ruby2010 talk 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, the review section needs to be reworded. I'd try to summarise what the reviews say, with out naming them. Just cite them as a source. The section isn't encyclopaedic. The awards section looks fine. The citations that are already in the article are consistently formatted in the text and in the reference section. I might break out the character development issues into a separate section, but it isn't necessary. I'm in Australia so my ability to respond is based around the time zone differences. --LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment – Most of the things brought up LauraHale just lead to over-citation and citing to the ridiculous level, a reference at the end of the sentence is just fine, it doesn't need to be repeated after every closing quotation mark. Several things are sourced on their respective pages, like Star Trek movie working together, filmmaker Brad Anderson, co-creator Roberto Orci (the episode credits itself also identified him as co-creator), etc. haven't read it all as it appeared most of the complaints were like that. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've checked and rechecked the citation page. The problem was the article was it wasn't cited properly and it was passed despite citation problems. Some of it could be resolved by tightening up the wording and removing extraneous information. If those two things aren't done, then the citations need to be put in. And this isn't an issue of over-citation. I'm not demanding that everything be cited two or three times. I'm demanding that the article be properly cited, where the facts are supported by the citation. If you and other contributors don't want to fix them, that's okay: The good article status can be removed because the citation problems still exist. --LauraHale (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
This remark "The quote is not cited. Every single quote in this article outside the summary needs to be immediately followed by a citation. If you want this to pass reassessment, this is key." rather demands everything to be cited two or three times, which is silly. You bring up some valid points, and a bunch of citation fest requests, which don't need fixing because they're cited just fine. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
If the source does not say it, then the text cannot say it. If you use a quote, it needs to be cited. If you do not want to cite a quote mid-sentence, remove the quote. This is how you do citing. If he thinks otherwise, he is misinformed. --LauraHale (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
The source says that and it is right there, you just have to open your eyes and look at it. There is nothing that demands the cite after every piece of quote when there are multiple in a sentence, just like if you use the same source for an entire paragraph you don't need to put the citation after every sentence. I'm not sure why you think that, but that is not the case. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Article has some NPOV issues. It looks like an attempt was made to get around this by relying on quotes like "that you'll want to see more of this relationship and what it's all about". The watcher should be left to form their own opinion. The article should not imply that they will be interested in the episode. That isn't factual: That's opinion. --LauraHale (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • This quote is from Nimoy! It is obviously his opinion. I see nothing NPOV about it. Ruby2010 talk
  • As was stated above, it is helpful to understanding the episode background if you have the director, producers, and actors weighing in on their thoughts for the episode. I see nothing wrong with this sentence, and in fact, I was forced to revert your edit concerning it, because you removed that Torv was stating it as opinion (and you made it seem like fact). Ruby2010 talk 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "That's what's kind of cool about working on Fringe, is everything seems kind of calm and lovely, but there's always something going on underneath"." That reads like advertising copy for the show. It also appears to be a general statement about working for the show, not for this specific entry. These types of quotes should probably be moved to their own section (quotes from the cast and crew) or moved to the main article about the show or this season. --LauraHale (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Summary of fixes and current problems

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To move this along, Fixed:

  • All quotes not have a citation directly after them.
  • Citations now match sources.

Needs work:

  • There continues to be too much quoting. Whenever possible, quotes need to be removed. If a quote remains, there needs to be a rational for it. As the article lacks pictures, some one might consider adding quote boxes for quotes that are removed from the text but still interesting.
  • The review sections needs a lead, summarising what the section below will say. The section needs to be linked better, so it does not appear to be several random reviews. What links the IGN review to the AV Club? Do the critics agree? Do they disagree? If all the critics are saying the same thing, summarise the section.

These should hopefully be minor fixes and this can be closed later today. --LauraHale (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should be all set to go now. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:There%27s_More_Than_One_of_Everything/GA1&oldid=1137248031"