Talk:WandaVision/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 14:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of today. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Add a MOS:GEOCOMMA after Atlanta, Georgia.
• Every episode summary passes MOS:TVEPISODE.
• "Matt Shakman was hired to direct and serve as an executive producer in August" – Shakman is not mentioned in this cited source.
• "Shakman was 'uniquely equipped' to direct such a series because of his experience directing series like the psychological drama Mad Men, the large-scale action series Game of Thrones, and sitcoms like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." – The Rolling Stone interview also mentions his work on the psychological drama Six Feet Under and the "self-aware single-cam" comedy You're the Worst, both of which ran for five seasons. Is there a reason why they are not listed as well?
• Are the commas after "brought to the series", "a simple concept", "new additions to the MCU", and "the Hex boundary" necessary?
• Since the article is tagged with using American English, add hyphens between "grown up" and "10 year olds".
• "In order to" seems a bit wordy when used in such a large article. I believe replacing it with simply "to" will do.
• For WP:OVERLINK, What If...? and The Office are linked twice, first in #Production and then in #Reception.
• "36.1 million on YouTube, 4.9 million on Facebook, and 10.1 million on Instagram" – why is only one of these websites linked?
• "after filming completed due to post-production work" – I think this sentence could be rephrased for clarity
• There are almost 200 reviews for the series but the reception section only includes 12. Try removing the overuse of quotes and dividing the categories into certain sections (such as reviews towards the plot, acting, tone, and delivery). See WP:RECEPTION for more information. Also, update the Rotten Tomatoes score and the nominations in #Accolades.
• Don't use <small> in tables per MOS:SMALLFONT. Also, is there a reason most of the accolades table is unsortable?
• Like with all articles on Marvel, the citation style is fantastic. Several images are also free-to-use, and those that are not are properly licensed. Great work!
• Those are my notes. Please ping me when you reply. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: Thank you so much for the reviews! I have addressed all of your concerns here except for the reception section, which I will get to shortly, and Shakman's experience. The reason that I left out Six Feet Under and You're the Worst is because I felt we only needed one example of each "type" of experience, and Mad Men and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia seemed more recognisable / referenced more in other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding the reception section, we should only contain a sampling of the reviews for the series, and when at all possible, from sites/authors Rotten Tomatoes deems "Top critics", which currently is at 47. WP:WEIGHT issues also come into play. Additionally, at least at the moment, the first 2 paragraphs are "official" reviews for the 3 episodes given to critics, while the last paragraph is reviews for the series as a whole, so that structure of segregating the two works in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree with your WEIGHT and first 3 episode concerns Favre. I will try do some work on a bit of a compromise soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: I have now reworked the reception section. I reviewed all the RT "Top critics" reviews to make sure we have an accurate spread of opinions and are addressing Favre's WP:WEIGHT concerns, and I generally maintained the first 3 eps vs full series split, but I also expanded with more critics, cut down on quotes, and re-organised into some hopefully logical paragraph groupings. Let me know if you think more work is needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed