Talk:Chapter 1 (House of Cards)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: TonyTheTiger

I will begin this review over the weekend. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is a strong nominee. It's full of well-written and well-sourced information. I have a few issues with the article's organization, with bits that are confusing, and with a few more minor concerns regarding grammar and such. If there are resolved, I believe this will make a fine GA. Issues are detailed below. – Quadell (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Organization


 * One of the most notable aspects of the show is the unusual narrative choice to have Frank directly address the camera to describe his thoughts. This aspect is always mentioned in reviews and interviews. But this article doesn't mention it, at least not directly. (The "Reviews" section does give contrasting opinions on whether or not it works, but it should really be introduced to the reader before it is critiqued.) The question is, where should it go? One option would be to have a "Style" section after plot, where you could discuss both the "asides" technique and the serious, brooding atmosphere. (Some of the material from the overly-lengthy "Reviews" section could go here, particularly the last two sentences, as well as information about the general mood.) There are other possible solutions, but this would be my preference, personally. What do you think?
 * I am not really sure what elements of the review section would belong in a Style section although I am not against it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You could, if you wanted, move a few bits of "Reviews" into a "Style" section. For instance, these quotes are mostly descriptive of the film's style, and could be pulled:
 * Hank Stuever of The Washington Post describes the film's style as "weighty seriousness", calling it both "moody and gorgeous". In her review for The Denver Post, Joanne Ostrow said the series is "Deeply cynical about human beings as well as politics and almost gleeful in its portrayal of limitless ambition."
 * But that isn't fully necessary; these quotes are really just as at home in the reviews section. The important thing, I think, is to find some way to introduce the "aside" narrative technique before you show critiques of it. One way would be to create a style section, and then you would have to find some way to make it more than a couple sentences. Perhaps there's a way to work it into the "Plot" section. I'm really not sure the best way to do that. Anyway, I've read lots of quotes by Spacey, Fincher, and Willimon describing the technique, comparing it to Shakespeare, and giving their reasons for using it, so you have a lot of material to work from. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That technique is really important at Frank Underwood (House of Cards). I am not sure it deserves extensive space at this article. I don't think it is that big a part of the story here. This article is about a political agreement gone wrong leading to revenge, the introduction of particular characters (notably Frank, Clare and Zoe). In truth, I think I might have other stuff here that should be moved to other articles. I am not necessarily dead set against further on this, but I did add a sentence to the plot in response to this issue already.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * After rereading the entire article, I note that the technique is mentioned both in the lead and in the plot section, which adequately introduces the concept. I think that will be fine. One remaining nitpick: both in the lead and in the plot section, the technique is described as "breaking the 4th wall". While accurate, I think it could be described better. What would you think of this wording? "Much of Underwood's dialogue throughout the episode is presented in a direct address to the audience, a narrative technique that breaks the fourth wall." – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of "Production" (except its first sentence) isn't really about the show's production; it's about the show's release. Again, there isn't an obvious place to put this information, but I don't think it should be where it is. Perhaps you could rename the "Reception" super-section to "Release and reception", with a new sub-section called "Online distribution" or whatever. Here you could put that first paragraph of "Production" (minus first sentence), as well as perhaps Stanley and Smith's opinions about the best pace to watch the show. Again, there are other possible solutions, but this is my preference.
 * Yes, the release information belongs somewhere else. I am not sure where. I don't think the review section is correct. I have moved it to after the filming.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your solution is good. – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Although the lead covers all the main sections of the article, it needs better balance. More than a third of the lead is devoted to summarizing the "Accolades" section (which has 276 words in the article), but only two sentences in the lead summarize the "Reviews" section (which has a much longer 1186 words). I would add another sentence or two about reviewer comments, trim some of the Emmy details, and perhaps add material for any new sections you create because of the previous two bullet points.
 * Revised LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good lead. (But see late addition below.) – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Confusing bits


 * Both the lead and the "Accolades" section seem to give contradictory information about Emmy wins. I'll quote from the "Accolades" section:
 * On September 15, ... "Chapter 1" ... earned the Primetime Emmy Award ..., making "Chapter 1" the first Emmy-awarded webisode. On September 22, [another Emmy was awarded], making "Chapter 1" the first Primetime Emmy-awarded webisode.
 * So did "Chapter 1" become "the first Primetime Emmy-awarded webisode" on September 15, when it won a Primetime Emmy? Or on September 22? Maybe I'm not understanding how Emmy Awards work, but it sounds contradictory to me.


 * At this time, there are three events related to firsts for this episode (who knows what year-end award season will bring from DGA, WGA, BAFTA, et al.).
 * Nominations: Netflix received 14 noms (9 for HoC). The secondary sources make you do work to follow the rest of this point which is that 5 were Primetime (4 for HoC) and 9 were Primetime Creative Arts (5 for HoC). Also, 7 were for specific episodes (4 for HoC's Chapter 1).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Primetime Creative Arts Emmy: Netflix/HoC won 3 of its 9 PCA Emmy noms (1 of which was for an episode).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Primetime Emmy: Netflix won 1 of its 5 Primetime Emmy noms, the one associated with Chapter 1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Primetime Emmys are considered more prestigious than Primetime Creative Arts Emmys. Thus, winning a PCAE creates a first of the broader type of Primetime Emmy that includes PCAEs, but winning a PE creates another first. Please suggest how to explain this. My attempt was to say that at first they won an Emmy including PCAEs and then later they were the first to have won a PE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I see how to fix this. The problem is that the sentence beginning "On September 15" says that the webisode won "the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Cinematography for a Single-Camera Series". That sounds like it's a Primetime Emmy, when it was actually a Primetime Creative Arts Emmy. (The source, NJ.com, does not refer to it as a Primetime Emmy.) If that sentence simply referred to the award as "the Emmy Award for Outstanding Cinematography for a Single-Camera Series", it would solve the problem. – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what that would solve. On September 15, secondary sources were reporting that Netflix/HOC won the first Emmy for web television. Are you suggesting we don't say it won the first emmy on this date. Maybe we should explain the conflict. Further advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand the situation, the webisode did win its first Emmy on 09/15. (Specifically, it was a Primetime Creative Arts Emmy, but not a Primetime Emmy.) But it then won it's first Primetime Emmy on 09/22. The current article text, however, calls the 09/15 award the "Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Cinematography for a Single-Camera Series", which (so far as I can tell from the source) is not correct. If it were correct, then the webisode would have won its first Primetime Emmy on 09/15, not 09/22, contradicting the very next sentence. See what I mean? – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this was the first webisode to win an Emmy on 9/15 since there are also Daytime Emmy Awards and three other types of Emmys. The language here needs to be precise and I am not sure what it should be.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You quote two reviewers named "Smith": Nancy deWolf Smith and Kyle Smith. It isn't always clear which you mean. For instance, paragraph 7 of "Reviews" introduces Kyle Smith, and then says "Smith notes that", clearly referring to Kyle. Later in that same paragraph, it says "Smith also had qualms...", and one assumes you mean Kyle -- but the citation references Nancy. Each Smith quote should be clear in context who is meant.
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is one final reference to "Smith" in the final paragraph of "Reviews" that could be ambiguous. Perhaps you could refer to her as "The Wall Street Journal's Smith"? – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Minor issues


 * I don't think it's useful to quote the official log line at the top of the "Plot" section. It feels clunky, and it unnecessarily reproduces non-free text. Besides, the FAs Pilot (Supernatural), Pilot (Smallville), Pilot (Parks and Recreation), and Pilot (House) do not include any official log line.
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No comma is needed after "Francis 'Frank' J. Underwood (Kevin Spacey)".
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider this sentence. "Underwood also encounters Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara), a young, opportunistic political reporter for the Washington Herald newspaper, unknowingly at first, but she uses their fortuitous proximity as an entre to his acquaintance." First off, the clause "unknowingly at first" hangs there without a clear referent. (Does Underwood not know that Barnes is a reporter? Does she not know he encounters her?) Also, the flowery language at the end ("fortuitous proximity", "entre") feels out of place with the rest of the article. I would reword the entire sentence.
 * I have tried to clean this up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it be better (more formal) to say "when there was little competition on television", rather than "when there was not much competition on television".
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of "Filming" needs to be rewritten. Either "a United States audience" or "United States audiences" would feel more natural than "the United States audience". Also, two independent clauses should not be joined with a comma. Perhaps you could word it "While Netflix had ventured..."?
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A minor reword is needed (for punctuation) in the start of the sixth paragraph of "Reception". Perhaps this?
 * Upon viewing the two preview episodes, critics had thoughts on the series as a whole, and many were positive. Stanley notes..."


 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The eighth and final paragraph of "Reception" begins "The Washington Post Stuever". Do you mean "The Washington Post's Stuever"?
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Late addition: The revised lead says "Similarly, Wright gets immediately shows her characters' traits caused", which needs rewording. I would also reword the final sentence of the lead to make it clear it is describing reviewers' opinions. Perhaps this:
 * Many critics recommend watching this episode (and all others in the series) as singular viewing experiences, rather than binge-viewed in a continuous session.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for fun: You may want to include this quote from creator Willimon: "It's a rough-and-tumble game whenever power is involved -- people's ambitions, their desires, their competitive spirit will often push them to play outside the rules." Perhaps as a side quote? Not necessary, but just a thought. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a quote about his feelings about the series now as they are filming season 2. That is not appropriate for this article, but I will drop it in House of Cards (season 2).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Final verdict

This article passes all the criteria for GA status, and I am happy to promote it as a certified Good Article. There is still the open issue of how to word Emmy wins in the "Accolades" section, but I am satisfied that the criteria are satisfied regardless. (I'll start a separate discussion on talk to handle this.) Congratulations on this successful GA nomination. – Quadell (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)