User talk:TRLIJC19/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Response to your edit-summary after reverting my changes for the article Grey's Anatomy (season 2)

I created the "Production" section after I rethought the article in late February (27th, probably). I did not realize this at the time but the entire content in the "Production" section was about reception (ratings, awards, reviews). I just renamed the section and added some information. I have reverted the article back to my changes as I have nominated the article for "Good Article" and I need it to be in the most appropriate way. Thank you. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just use an edit summary describing your edits from now on please. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination for Grey's Anatomy (season 2)

• You wrote "The order of the page should be lead, episodes, production (if applicable), cast and crew (merged if no more information is found), reception with critical response, ratings, and accolades, and then dvd release.". I have made edits so that the order was the one you proposed, but if we place the "Episodes" section after the lead section, there will just be blank space near the lead infobox, as the episode table will begin immediately under the lead infobox. What do you say?
• I don't know what to "expand a reference" means.
• I have broken down into two subsections. "Critical response" and "Ratings". The awards they receive obviously reflect the reviews of certain critics. I would have broken the "Reception" section into the three subsections as you suggested, but I believe there was not enough information for the "Critical response" subsection if we put the awards in a separate subsection.

If there are other issues I have not fixed, I hope you will let me know and accept my sincere apologies. I really believe we can promote this article to Good Article! Thank you for your colaboration.Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you add this information at Talk:Grey's Anatomy (season 2)/GA1, because it should be on record. Also, when you fix something, write  Done under it with your signature on that good article page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I'm doing. I have not contributed significantly to this article, so I am reviewing it. I am not just giving advice. I am reviewing the article for good article status. So it is not like we are collaborating. That is why everything should be on the review page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposition

I have recently seen the new format you proposed for the Meredith Grey page and I can only say that I am deeply impressed! I would really enjoy working with you and trying to improve another character page as I believe there is a lot of available information that is not included in the Grey's Anatomy-related pages. I suggest we start editing the Derek Shepherd page as I am sure there is a lot to write about. Thank you and well done! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating it! Yes, it is a lot of work. Most of the time you're researching and going through articles to find information. Sure, I would love to collaborate on the other character pages. Derek's page is really messed up. It is all plot summary and none of the creation section is referenced. If you're up for that challenge, I'm all for it, but if you would like to do the ones that don't need as much work first, such as Arizona Robbins, that might be a smart idea. Let me know. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The character pages that need the least amount of work in order from least work to most are, Arizona Robbins, Owen Hunt, Callie Torres, Preston Burke, and Miranda Bailey. The rest of them are in really bad shape. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination for Grey's Anatomy (season 1)

I have nominated Grey's Anatomy (season 1) for Good Article. I am really looking forward to your review! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only reviewer. There are thousands of others. But I suppose I'll review at your request because I haven't contributed to it at all. I may not be able to finish until tonight though. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I obviously knew that you are not the only reviewer. I just wanted to let you know as I trust your judgement and I knew you hadn't contributed to it. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to sound sarcastic. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:JessicaCapshawPD.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JessicaCapshawPD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Arizona Robbins

Could I review the Arizona Robbins article for the GA Nominations, or are there too many contributions I have made to the article? I have only made minor changes, but I think there are about five-six. I believe that what you've done to the article is amazing! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the review would be terminated because you helped make the page better. The only way you can edit an article is if the only time you edited it was reverting. But if you're interested in reviewing, take a look at WP:GAN, because there's a whole backlog of articles in need of reviewing. Find one you haven't edited. Thanks for appreciating the work I did on the article! TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Owen Hunt

Great job with your edits for Owen Hunt! I would really like to be the one to review the article, but do you think that my minor six edits to the article would determine the termination of my review? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it would be because if you go to the log for top editors of that page, you are number five. But like I said, check out WP:GAN. TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Grey's anatomy first appearances

Hello again! Sorry I just need to verify are we posting the characters' first appearances as recurring and as regular or just their first appearance overall? Let me know; personally I think it's better to just post their first appearance overall rather than clutter it up with their first appearance as recurring and first as regular, you know? That's just my opinion. Creativity97 (Talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are, it's no problem that you didn't know. I believe this was agreed upon by consensus a while back. I think it's more clear to include that, because being a guest star/recurring is a lot different than being a main star. Thanks for soliciting my thoughts on this and for all the work you do for WP:Grey's! TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that you changed Addison's page back to how you want it. It serves no purpose to solicit my thoughts and continue regardless of them. But I've reverted back, and it's all good. Thanks again for your work at WP:Grey's. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay great, thanks for the clarification. Creativity97 (Talk) 17:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy (season 3)

I have an idea! I suggest we delete the Good Article nomination for Grey's Anatomy (season 3) and replace it with a Featured List nomination. I have done some research and it definitely fits the criteria! What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not a very good idea. It doesn't even meet good article status until you fix those issues. FAC will shut it down fast. And remember, we are not working as a team to get it to GA. I am reviewing the article you nominated. That is it. I am responsible for passing or failing this article. If you'd like to get it to FA, having it already be a GA is a good idea. Fix the issues I listed, which will get it to GA, then improve the page more, and nominate for FA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting the article to Featured Article but to Featured List. It definitely meets the criteria now that I have fixed the issues. My question is: can I delete a GA nomination? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you're not listening to what I'm saying. If you choose to delete the GAN, I have to close it with an automatic fail. When you are this close to promoting it to GA, it would be arrogant to have it fail. Once it is a GA, then nominate for FL. Do not ask me to fail this nomination. A failed GA nomination will not look good at FLC. TRLIJC19 (talk)

As an additional comment, I don't appreciate your sarcasm about it being called a FL because at Talk:List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, you repeatedly referred to the article as FA. It was a brain slip, and I don't need an editor with less than 1,000 edits getting smart with me. TRLIJC19 (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my god! I am TERRIBLY SORRY! I didn't mean for a second to sound sarcastic! I just thought you misunderstood my target and that could have happened to anyone. I know that the article doesn't meet the criteria for Featured Article, but it does for Featured List. I don't know how it got to this point! I am terribly sorry! I most certainly do not feel superior to you in any way, as I believe you are the most capable contributor for the Grey's Anatomy WikiProject. Please, accept my sincere apologies! I was just curious and really determined to have a featured article/list etc. Once again, I am terribly sorry! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's no problem, sorry I'm a bit tired and I over reacted. But yeah I really recommend fixing the few minor issues that still exist at Talk:Grey's Anatomy (season 3)/GA1, and I can pass the article for GA. After it's passed, you can immediately nominate for FL. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So, one article can be both Good Article and Featured List? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well on Wikipedia, most articles are good articles before featured lists/articles. So yes. Again, I highly recommend deleting the FLC nomination now and getting it to GA, then renominating it for FL. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I'm a bit confused. If the article passes as both a Good Article (GA) and a Featured List (FL), there will be two icons on top of the page? I haven't seen that before. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, lol, the article will just show in the talk page that it is a passed good article, replaced by FL status. It will only show the FL icon on the main page. And also, many voters at FLC will be more inclined to say yes, if they see it already earned GA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Once again, I am enormously sorry! I have huge respect for you and it was not my intention for a second to sound the way I probably sounded to you. I hope that doesn't change your opinion on me, either. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's no problem, I over reacted. I truly appreciate all the work you do for WP:Grey's and I am especially thankful for the redo you did of the lead at Grey's Anatomy. That article has always been my main concern, and I appreciate the help. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting your appreciation means so much to me! By the way, I have nominated Grey's Anatomy (season 1) and Grey's Anatomy (season 2) for Featured List as they have already passed as Good Articles. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

FL vs GA

Can I nominated Grey's Anatomy (season 1) and Grey's Anatomy (season 2) for FL? They are both currently GAs, and I understood that one article can not be both a GA and a FL. I therefore suggest we remove them as GA and nominate them for FL. What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominate for FA, so it can keep GA status. TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they meet the criteria for FA. Just for FL. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured List for Grey's Anatomy season pages

I have researched Wikipedia and Grey's Anatomy (season 1) and Grey's Anatomy (season 2) do not meet the criteria for Featured Article (FA), but are perfect candidates for Featured List (FL). The two articles are currently Good Articles (GA), but since an article can not be both a GA and a FL, I suggest we remove them as GAs, and nominate them for FL. What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Then, work on the page until it meets FA criteria., in my opinion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you with my questions but that only means that I trust your judgement. I think you misunderstood what I am trying to explain. There are two season articles that already are Good Articles (Grey's Anatomy (season 2) and Grey's Anatomy (season 1)). I want them to be Featured Lists. I learned that a Good Article can not become a Featured List, but only Featured Article. The articles do not meet the criteria for Featured Article but they meet the criteria for Featured List. So, in order to get them to Featured List, I should remove them as Good Articles. I want them to become Featured Lists but I can not since they already are Good Articles. What do you say? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying completely. I gave my opinion. As I said, work hard and dedicate time to the pages to get it to FA status, that way they can also keep GA status. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article is not really a list. It just contains a list, and it largely an article. The right thing to do is nominate for FA, when the article is ready, because at FLC for the season 1 article, users are already opposing due to it not being a list. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I will do my best and dedicate my time to get all the information necessary for promotion. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy PR

Sure, will be happy to give feedback. I'll try to read it and make some comments within the next two weeks. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, it makes no difference what order you choose. But having said that, the article is prose heavy so getting it copyedited first would be ideal. Once that is completed the peer review would catch out any niggly problems, unreliable sources and images. I did start reading up to the production yesterday and thought it was in much better shape then last time. But just to let you know, I won't be concentrating on prose in the peer review unless it is basic errors. Mainly ways to improve it: if I feel paragraphs can be moved around and to check references. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I'll get it copyedited. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back on the PR (I assume you still want it done, or you wanted to withdraw it in order to concentrate on the copyediting?); anyway just some things I picked up while reading it this afternoon:

Production

• Avoid contractions, unless they are in quotes. "endeavoring to create a show that wouldn't discuss the subject", wouldn't -> would not
• Any ideas if the series was pitched to other networks? If so, specify.
• I would suggest breaking the first sentence of the second paragraph into two. So "Grey's Anatomy was announced to viewers in late 2004...", "Due to high ratings and interest from viewers,..."
• Not sure if "Francie Calfo, executive vice president of development at ABC Entertainment, commented on the show's conception", should be in the second paragraph, as it is discussing about the show's conception. Could be moved to the first.
• "When asked by Oprah", as I'm not too familiar with American customs, should that be "Oprah Winfrey"? Of course, I know that but 'Oprah' might refer to her show; best to differentiate
• "Pompeo commented that she felt, as the star, she should've been consulted...", should have been

Production team

• "Series' production design is lead by Donald Lee Harris...", led not lead -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I still want peer review comments, thank you for them! Any other advice you can give is appreciated! TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination for Grey's Anatomy (season 4)

I addressed all the issues, besides the reference-related ones. Could you let me know (on the GA nomination page of the article) what references are the ones I should work on? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the notification. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have addresses all the issues. Looking forward to your review! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please address the final issue under awards and nominations. TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see it at first. All done now! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New GA nomination

Hello! I don't know if you are interested in Desperate Housewives, but I just wanted to let you know that I have been working on Desperate Housewives (season 3) and I have just nominated it for Good Article. I would be really grateful if you could review it! Looking forward to hearing your answer. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I've never seen the show. That being said, you might be better off, waiting for an editor who is familiar with the topic. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'll just wait for a reviewer, then. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)