Talk:Chuck Versus the Family Volkoff/GA1

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7(Talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will review this one. --Starstriker7(Talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

General stuff

 * The Wikia article on the episode appears to have lots of similarities to the article here. Which article came first?
 * This one. I think you'll find that most season four articles on Chuck Wiki are directly plagiarized from their counterparts on Wikipedia.

Plot

 * The first paragraph needs a period.
 * Facepalm.
 * In the first paragraph, can you explain why Mary tells Chuck to tell Ellie about his employment in the CIA?
 * Added "to stop lying to her".
 * In the second paragraph, can you explain why Chuck's playing cool worries Sarah?
 * She had expected an emotional reaction.
 * for the murders of "Chuck Versus the Muuurder" --> for the murders in "Chuck Versus..."
 * Done.
 * Mogadishu, Somalia and --> Mogadishu, Somalia, and
 * Done.
 * Outside, Sarah and Casey pick up Russian --> Outside Sarah and Casey detect Russian...
 * Done.
 * only for all of them to be trapped by Vivian --> only to become trapped by Vivian
 * Done.
 * When Volkoff asks his daughter to release him, she refuses due to her experience of being lied to and abandoned. --> When Volkoff asks his daughter to release him, she refuses, feeling deceived and abandoned by him.
 * Nice touch.
 * In the phrase "but Volkoff deactivates them." clarify what "them" is
 * ,but Volkoff deactivates them --> which Volkoff deactivates
 * her father was ever afraid of. --> her father ever feared.
 * Done. I also linked Vivian Volkoff and Alexei in the fourth paragraph and added their actors. It seems I missed something when I changed the plot.

Production
I'll hold off on this one until expansion.


 * "was one of many episodes to be directed by" --> Could you specify which one of the many episodes it was?
 * Done, but I'll never find a reliable source verifying that it was the 17th episode he directed.
 * If you can't reference it, then don't worry about it. Strike "the 17th episode" from the sentence, and it should work out just fine. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Boycool (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge the top two paragraphs to form a fully-fledged introduction paragraph.
 * Done.
 * The Music section is still short, and it doesn't seem like there is a real prospect for expanding it. Merge it into the Production section, and rephrase the prose from that section so it is more relevant to the article's production.
 * Done.
 * Now that I look at it, it might be helpful to attach the Cultural references section under Production because such cultural references in Chuck play an integral part in the show's character.
 * I put it as a subsection. I'm not sure if that's what you wanted.
 * You are right, that is what I meant to say. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cultural references

 * The sentence involving Uno seems abrupt with regards to the text. Blend it into the rest of the prose.


 * to mine the thorium he had --> to mine the thorium, he had
 * Check.

Lead

 * There are a lot of sections that need to be expanded (keep reading the review to find out why). Once these are, the lead should also be expanded to encompass the new information.
 * I will add the Nielsen ratings for all households and the 18-49 demographic in the lead and reception.--Boycool (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot

 * In response to your earlier comment about if the plot can be divided into subsections...it really depends. It is acceptable is the plot is unmanageably long. In the case of this article, that is not so; I see that you were just trying to divide out all of the subplots in the episode. In this case, it may be better to combine the plot to make it chronological with regards to how it happens in the episode.
 * Done. I had the plot condensed at one point, but it was reverted.

Flashes

 * The comment on plot also includes the "Flashes" section, which seems to have been given a bit of undue weight. Merge this also into the Plot section.
 * Done.

Contentious material and citation issues (Criterion 2b [Controversial/Contentious material cited; inline citations used])

 * People like to use reference 2 from io9; I don't sit well with this because it is a blog, and blogs tend to be unreliable. This source seems like a easy fix, so do so; remove the reference and let reference 3 speak for it.
 * Done.
 * Reference 8 is also a blog. It looks reliable because the author, Sepinwall, is an editor for a New Jersey newspaper. Try not to rely too heavily on the blogs; if you can find references in their newspapers or do something to establish the author's credibility, then do that instead.
 * The Wikipedia article for HitFix calls it a news website. Also, Alan Sepinwall has frequent interviews with cast and crew members (such as here and here).
 * Alright. I shall take it then. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Original research issues (Criterion 2c [No original research])

 * The caption of the chess piece photo doesn't appear in the source to which it is cited. This should be removed, along with the photo; see my comments why in the image relevance section of the review.
 * The source stated, "Similarly, the twist in the plot to obtain The Norseman weapon was as transparent as possible, but it still allowed the audience the joy of watching this master manipulator play Team Bartowski like pawns on a chessboard. (Yes, Chuck, I saw what you did there.)" It doesn't exactly make the connection between Volkoff's chess game and his deception of the other character. But since you said below that the picture was worthless, I'll remove it.
 * The caption discussed a chess move that wasn't mentioned or discussed in the source, which is why I said what I said. Also, the picture isn't worthless; I didn't say that. It does serve an aesthetic purpose on this article, but it isn't directly relevant to the article's content, which is why I asked for its removal. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad.

Production and its derivatives

 * The section on Production is awfully short. Can you find interviews on how the episode was produced?
 * Additionally, can you gather insight on how the guest stars might have participated?
 * None appear to be available, so I'm crossing the above two off. --Starstriker7(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the season has been released on DVD/Blueray yet. Check if it has; if so, then go and add in when it was released, and, if so, if there are any special features/alternate endings/etc.
 * According to the main article, the DVD/Bluray release dates are September 6, 2011,  (unsourced)  for Region 1 (United States, Canada, Bermuda, U.S. territories), October 3, 2011,  (sourced)  for Region 2 (Europe [except Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus], Middle East, Egypt, Japan, South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, Greenland), and an unknown date for Region 4 (Mexico, Central America, South America, Oceania).--Boycool (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose it does belong on the main article, more so than on the episode one. Nix my previous comment. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Music

 * This section has a one-sentence paragraph. Try to look for sources about the music; perhaps why it was chosen, and who was in charge of it. If any songs were produced especially for this episode, don't forget to add that in too. If the sources largely point you in the direction
 * If a whole soundtrack is devoted to the episode, why did you just pick two songs out of the whole album? Discuss the soundtrack as it is, including a table charting all the songs that appeared in the episode. On that note, if the two mentioned songs are the most famous ones, then they do deserve a mention in the section's prose; it is just that they need to be discussed in the context of the soundtrack as a whole.
 * The episode featured existing songs from various artists.

Continuity section

 * The "Continuity" section looks trivial, and short without a prospect of expansion without delving into original research. Either merge this somehow into the plot or remove it entirely.
 * Done.

Neutrality issues (Criterion 4 [No undue weight to certain viewpoints])

 * For an episode with overly positive reviews, reference 4 seems to have been excluded.
 * Consider it included.

Stability issues (Criterion 5 [No edit warring, etc.])
It looks like a lot of new editors have been swooping in and adding trivia. It looks like it has died down a bit, so I feel that it passes in this category at this moment.


 * I do have an optional note. The cultural references section is likely to attract a lot of unnecessary IP/new user attention, especially for a TV show like this, so if you can merge it with any section, do so.
 * Which section could I merge it with?

Image copyright issues (Criterion 6a [Images properly tagged, licensed, etc. if content is free-use])
There is one fair-use image. It checks out.

Image relevance issues (Criterion 6b [Images relevant and with good captions])

 * The chess piece picture seems tangential at best. It doesn't seem to add to the article in any way other than through its aesthetic value. The caption is original research, as discussed previously. The whole thumbnail best be removed entirely.
 * Done.

Overall comments
The article is strong, especially when seen in the fact that it was not an article at all when you got started, Boycool. However, the issues with the plot sections and the needs for expansion keep, the article, in my opinion, from GA. It seems like a lot, so I'll put this one on hold for a week. Nice work! You just have a little ways left to go on this one. --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will work more on the remaining issues later. --Boycool (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will start reviewing for criterion 1a (prose) momentarily. Good work so far with addressing my comments. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's a wrap. Congratulations. I will pass this article momentarily. :)
 * Thank you very much! --Boycool (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)