| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after receiving the previous peer review feedback for this page, I followed all advice given, and the article is completely re-written, in an effort to comply with FAC. The only issue I am fully aware of is distribution's lack of broad coverage. This is only because I have yet to find info on other countries the program reaches. I plan on nominating for FA, but would like to receive final feedback before doing so. I would appreciate an experienced user, who's dealt with FAC before, to explain any flaws of the article, and anything that would stop you from saying yes at FAC.
Thanks tremendously, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is a show I have heard of and seen commercials for, but never watched. Thanks for your work on the article, which seems pretty comprehensive (i.e. pretty much all the information needed seems to be here). However, I think it needs a fair amount of work before it would pass easily at WP:FAC, especially with the lead and prose. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which are mostly comments I would make if this were at FAC.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There is one FA on a medical drama, House M.D., which seems like it would be a useful model. I also note that there are a fair number of FAs on television series at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - it seems as if these might give some insight into how to handle certain aspects of the article (like where to put information on the spin off)
- The lead seems to me like it does not follow WP:LEAD well. One problem is that the lead should be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there does not seem to be anything in the current lead about the musical episode, or the merchandise, or top ten lists, or even casting. Note it does not have to be more than a brief mention, but as a full summary these things should be mentioned (if it is important enough for its own (sub)section, it should be in the lead.
- I also think the lead needs to make it clearer what the current or most recent season is (the eighth season ended in May) to help provide context to the reader. See WP:PCR
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - the ninth season renewal seems to only be in the lead though
Done It is under U.S. television ratings, on the chart.
- The level of detail in the second paragraph of lead seems excessive to me - as noted I have never seen this show and only know that there is a character nicknamed "McDreamy" on it. I do not think the medical specialties of the various doctors need to be given in the lead in most cases - there is too much "medical specialty A" of "character whose name I never heard of B" (played by "actor or actress I usually do not know C") and it gets confusing. Again look at the House article - it does not mention in the lead that Taub is a plastic surgeon
- The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of prose. This is decent, but could use some polish. A few examples follow, but this needs a copyedit
- Avoid needless repetition - first sentence says it was highly rated (top ten) in its first four seasons, then the next sentence repeats this but omits season four for some reason: Having attained commercial success and critical acclaim, Grey's Anatomy was among the top-ten rated shows in the United States from its first through fourth seasons. The first, second and third seasons received high ratings, with an average viewership of around 19 million, but the past few seasons have seen a decrease. Also the last phrase about the past few seasons is one of those things that can get outdated quickly - better to be specific and say which seasons had a ratings drop.
- Just ungrammatical and needlessly complex: The series, especially during the second and third season, has received numerous awards, of which are the Golden Globe Award for Best Drama Series in 2006 and two Primetime Emmy nominations for Outstanding Drama Series in 2006 and 2007. AND nominations are not the same as actually receiving awards - plus why single out these two noms, when it has many other noms and won other awards for acting, producing, makeup etc.?
- Unclear - I thought this meant the series was currently in its fifth season when I first read it Having been on the air for five years, Grey's Anatomy was named the fourth-highest revenue earning show in 2010. How about something like In 2010 after its fifth season, Grey's Anatomy was named the fourth-highest television money-maker, in terms of advertising revenue per half hour.
- The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
- The images are nice and often are the first thing that readers look at - I think that they need to be a bit more informative. I think it is OK to use full names and wikilinks in captions (it is not overlinking or a violation of the MOS). So Rhimes envisioned a racially diverse drama. could be something like Series creator Shonda Rhimes envisioned a racially diverse drama.
- That said the MOS says to use a person's full name on first mention, then just use their last name thereafter (assuming there is no one else with the same last name, and obviously not changing direct quotations)(Plus captions are OK to use full name), but SHonda Rhimes is repeated in full in the Production team section
- For FAC, lots of little things like this need to be take care of - why is "Dyslexia" capitalized in The catalyst of the series, Patrick Dempsey (Derek Shepherd), was fearful of not receiving the part, due to his Dyslexia.?
- And why is Dempsey "the catalyst" for the series? This is mentioned in the lead and in the sentence quoted, but never explained or expanded
- Done The term is now only used in the lead; as a descriptive term. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The structure of the first sections after the lead seems odd to me - first the reader learns about the "Conception" of the series, then about the spin off, then the all musical episode, and then sections on the production team and casting follow. I would look at a FA on a tv series with a spinoff to see how it is handled, but it seems to me that the spinoff and musical episode sections should come much later in the article.
- Or there is stuff in the article that just does not agree with the rest of the article - for example Throughout its first six years, Grey's Anatomy was included in various critics' top ten lists... is followed by four years of such lists (not six)
Not done This was written this way, because it is not four straight years. The years were 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010. That is a span of six years. So, I thought the best wording would be "throughout its first six years". TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done
- Or The series' primary writer is Rhimes; she has written 170 episodes. Under Rhimes, on the writing staff, is Vernoff with 18 episodes, Stacy McKee with 17, Tony Phelan with 14, Joan Rater with 14, and Debora Cahn with 13. adds up to over 240 episodes, but the infobox says there are only 172 so far - this needs to clarify that some are co-written, and also needs to add a year or date (as of when is this true?)
- Done episode numbers removed, as the number will keep changing, and it does not really help the reader's comprehension. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Avoid vague time terms like currently - better to use "As of YEAR" or perhaps "after the nth season" The series currently holds a score of 66 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on five reviews for the past season.[164]
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example "medical personnel" is linked to Medic, which a) does not seem like the correct link, and b) does not really do anything to increase the reader's comprehension
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Copied these comments here from my talk page:
On the peer review, you mentioned that the article needs a copy edit. However, it has already been copy edited by a member of the GOCE, just last week. Are you saying that it needs another one? TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- This peer review is just my opinion, but I think it does need (another) copy edit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a few more questions—if you don't mind:
- Again, should this article still be c/e even though it was done last week by the GOCE?
- I do not mind and yes, I think it does.
- Is it okay to mention season nine's renewal, just in the lead? I do not know an appropriate section to add it to, and it will only be there until the ninth season commences airing.
- My strong preference is to include it in the body of the article. Perhaps have a history section that includes the spinoff, the musical episode, and the renewal? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- You said: "Throughout its first six years, Grey's Anatomy was included in various critics' top ten lists... is followed by four years of such lists (not six)". However, the years that the show was included in a list were 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. That is four years, but it is spanned across six years. Therefore, I thought the best wording would be "throughout its first six years", no?
- Often things that are clear to someone very familiar with the subject are not to the average reader. I would say something like Critics included the show in top ten lists in four of its first six seasons, .... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the responses! TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Often things that are clear to someone very familiar with the subject are not to the average reader. I would say something like Critics included the show in top ten lists in four of its first six seasons, .... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A few more questions:
- Do you think a "Related media" section would be appropriate to include the spinoff and musical episode?
- Do you think I should request the c/e from the GOCE, or perhaps do you know someone that is great at copyediting?
Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The musical epsiode is still an episode of Grey's Anatomy, so I would not call it "related media". I would look at some model articles: Meerkat Manor is an FA on a TV series with a prequel movie. The Quatermass Experiment is a British sf tv show that spawned three sequel series (and is an FA). The Simpsons is a FA and discusses the movie based on the series. Note that none of these talk about sequels in the conception section.
- I would look for someone who has had at least one FA where they were the/a major contributor for a copyeditor. There are also some volunteer copyeditors at WP:PR/V.
- The article feels long - I would make sure to avoid needless repetition and too much detail. It might be worth checking to see if the Casting section (which is pretty long) duplicates the later plot and characters material.
- Done Nothing is repetitive, it's just that there are so many characters that have been on this show. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Update: I've gone through 'casting' and eliminated loads of unnecessary detail, that can be given at individual character articles. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)