Wikipedia:Peer review/Chuck Versus the Intersect/archive1

Chuck Versus the Intersect

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've rewritten and expanded this article, and I would like to get feedback on it to hopefully get it to a Good Article and eventually even Featured Article if possible. I want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything, and that I've done everything correctly. Particularly, I'd like to check the use of and formatting of citations, the ease with which a non-Chuck viewer could comprehend the plot summary, and the prose throughout, especially in the "Production" section.

Thanks, Boycool (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Thanks for working on this article. I've never watched Chuck, so hopefully my review is what you are looking for. There are a lot of Featured Articles on television pilots that you can model this article on; Pilot (House), Pilot (Parks and Recreation), Pilot (Smallville) and Pilot (Supernatural) all being examples.

• Plot
  • I comprehended the overall plot, but some minor plot points could stand to be trimmed. Is the first paragraph that important?
    • Not some much to this episode as to subsequent ones. Without that paragraph, someone who read this article wouldn't be able to understand "Chuck Versus the Alma Mater", "Chuck Versus the Nemesis", or "Chuck Versus the Ex". --Boycool (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Conception
  • "Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak wrote the pilot for Chuck, which was initially given a put pilot commitment by NBC before a pilot order was green lit by the network in January 2007." "Pilot" appears three times in this sentence and not everyone knows what a put pilot is. Consider rephrasing.
  • The information about the first broadcast of the episode and its screening at Comic-Con should not be in Conception. Consider moving to the reception section.

• Casting
  • File:Chuck Pilot 3.jpg should be dumped as it merely illustrates what a living person looks like. A free image of Wendy Makkena would have the same purpose and effect. A free image of Zachary Levi would probably be better here anyway, instead of a one-episode guest star.
  • "Gomez later said his reaction to reading the script for the pilot was, "There's a ninja in the script! I've got to do this!"" Only use quotations if the information cannot possibly be recast. Consider "Gomez decided he wanted to be part of the pilot after reading there was a ninja in the script."
  • "Despite appearing in promotional cast photographs, Kayla Hart was dropped before filming." This is confusing as it stands; Is Kayla Hart an actress or a character?
  • "McG, [...] directed the first hour of the series". Just say he "directed the pilot" since technically there was no series at that point.

• Flashes
  • Is it really necessary to give this plot device a full section listing the time it appears? I could easily be incorporated into a footnote, placed after the first mention of the flashes in the plot section.

• Music
  • Consider merging this section with the production section.

• Cultural references
  • I know a Cultural references section has now become a must-have part of a television episode article but this one is very short. Buy More/Best Buy and Nerd Herd/Geek Squad can be incorporated into the Conception section. I really can't see the point of mentioning Batdance, Call of Duty and the North by Northwest post - they seem like incredibly minor parts of the episode.

• Reception
  • The subsections are very short, so I advise removing the subheadings.
  • You should incoporate further reviews into this section. Reception is available from The San Francisco Chronicle, The Columbus Dispatch, USA Today, The Boston Globe, to name just some.
    • I'll add the other two when I can get past the spam blockers on my laptop. --Boycool (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley0110 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Boycool (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re putting flashes as a footnote, I mean instead of having a whole section devoted to listing the instances of flashes in the episode (which is basically just a second, shorter, plot section), you can put the description of what they are as an explanatory footnote. So when flashes is first mentioned in the plot section, put <ref group=n>The episode establishes that a user who has subliminally retained the Intersect data receives feedback from it in the form of what Chuck labels "flashes". Chuck has several flashes throughout the episode.</ref> Then put

== Footnotes ==

{{reflist|group=n}}

above the References section. That stops the plot summary section being bloated but still provides an explanation for readers unfamiliar with the series. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Boycool (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)