Talk:Fringe (TV series)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Intro: This needs to desperately be expanded. The lede for any article should adequately summarize the entire article, but this only explains the story and what season its on. Maybe model it after this.
 * ✅. Looks to briefly describe the major sections of the article in sufficient detail to adequately summarize the entire article. Akihironihongo (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Intro: No need for citations in the intro. I'd move them to their respective locations (i.e., [1] in "Conception", [4] in "Reception", etc.)
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Premise: Maybe add citations for each of the seasons, like season 2
 * Premise: Move the citation after "Walternate" to the end of the sentence or paragraph
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Glyph Code: While Fringepedia has the code, I don't think it counts as a reliable source, so I'd remove it.
 * ✅. Akihironihongo (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Recurring Characters: Explain who Nadine Park, also, why is she the only character with a citation?
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Production: The last sentence talks about newel et al, this should be moved and merged to the reception section
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Production: Is there any way casting can be expanded like Production or Conception?
 * Casting is actually just about as long as Production (if you ignore the large quote). So should both Production and Casting be expanded or should neither? Akihironihongo (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Casting: Don't forget that a computer-generated Leonard Nimoy appeared in the episode "Letters of Transit"
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Home Video Releases: The second sentence of the first paragraph is unsourced
 * ✅. Simply removed, as it seemed unnecessary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Home Video Releases: Can you expounded up the third season disc at all?
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe merge "Home Video Releases" into "Other Media" and call it "Media", having subheadings for "Video Releases", "Games", and "Comics
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception: "In its 2008 Year in Review, Television Without Pity declared…" This sentence needs citations after every direct quote. Also, remove the space before [84]
 * ✅. Akihironihongo (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception: "The Daily Herald comments that…" Change to "The Daily Herald commented that"
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception: "Entertainment Weekly, which stated "The best new show of the year took a few weeks to grow on me, but now it's a full-blown addiction",[87] the LA Times, calling Walter Bishop one of the best characters of 2008, saying that "the role of the modern-day mad scientist could so easily have been a disaster, but the 'Fringe' writers and the masterful John Noble have conspired to create a character that seems, as trite as it sounds, more Shakespearean than sci-fi."" HUGE run-on sentence. Break this up and rephrase. I'm not entirely sure if it counts as a sentence because the syntax and verbs make no sense. Try "Entertainment Weekly stated "The best new show of the year took a few weeks to grow on me, but now it's a full-blown addiction".[87] The LA Times called Walter Bishop one of the best characters of 2008, noting that "the role of the modern-day mad scientist could so easily have been a disaster, but the 'Fringe' writers and the masterful John Noble have conspired to create a character that seems, as trite as it sounds, more Shakespearean than sci-fi."[88]
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception: "Chicago Tribune states that some episodes are…" Change 'states' to 'stated'
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ratings: The last sentence of the first paragraph is unsourced
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ratings: "Further promoted by the critical reaction…but asserts that the move will "re-animate" the show." Change 'asserts' to 'asserted'
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Renewal: Watch out for some of the sentences that still have visages of reports before the series was renewed. Make sure they clearly say "before the series was renewed for a final season…" or something like that
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * International Broadcast: A vast majority of this section is simple unsourced and won't fly until there are reliable citations attached
 * ✅. I removed all unsourced material. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Awards: Maybe expand and name the big ones the show has won, like Emmys, if any at all. Also, add a citation
 * ✅. Akihironihongo (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * References: These all need to be consistent, such as M/D/Y, or MM-DD-YYYY, etc. There are too many different types here
 * ✅. Used YYYY-MM-DD format. Akihironihongo (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * References: What makes BuddyTV, Seriable, TV Show on DVD, Jib Hi-Fi reliable sources?
 * ✅? In the context of the section in which the BuddyTV and Seriable refs are located, I think they are verifiable enough to keep in the article (I really don't think BuddyTV is going to photoshop in "observers were here" in the title sequence for personal gain). As for TV show on DVD, I'm not sure if it's unreliable, so I didn't delete the reference; however, I added a reference to amazon.com, which has the release date on it. Finally, I replaced jbhifi references with ones from ezydvd.com.au. Akihironihongo (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For BuddyTV, the casting ref is fine, it's nothing that's controversial or can be challenged (Mark Valley and Kirk Acevdeo cast in Fringe is obviously a fact), plus there's a another ref for it by TV Guide. The other one for the "Letters of Transit" intro, again, nothing questionable is being presented there, just an article that displays the intro (the video is supplied by Fox Broadcasting themselves via YouTube). TVShowsOnDVD is definitely a reliable source, I'm not sure how to defend it, but I've been a browser of that site for years and it's always posted reliable news. Plus, it was acquired by TV Guide back in 2007. Seriable is the only questionable source, it's definitely not a site I'd use to cite breaking news, but only fansites and blogs have articles that discuss trivia like that. If you're fine with BuddyTV, then there is this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Replaced with a Variety article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * References: Some refs link "TV by the Numbers", others don't
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Links: Refs 14, 36, 42, and 71 are dead
 * ✅. All dead links fixed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Links: 41 and 89 are expiring soon, I would webarchive them to be safe
 * ✅. They were actually the same ref, so I removed the duplication. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Links: Ref 38 needs a registration add the template
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are the big issues I see. On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Things are looking really good. I'll give you guys a little more time to work on this if you need it since it is a big article. :)--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, now that I've started to watch the show, don't forget that Leonard Nimoy appeared in the last episode and will probably be in the next one as well.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, everything looks really good; almost there! The only thing I can really suggest is that you site the plot like this, aka using primary sources. I would also add some of the background and development info into the lead. Other than that, I think it is looking a lot better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added primary sources to the Premise section and added another paragraph to lead regarding the series' format (procedural/serial). Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Intro looks great now. Only tiny thing left; Refs 1-14 have Fringe bolded, which I would remove. Do this, and I will pass the article.Gen. Quon (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Just realized they were bolded because they were linking to the article itself (duh!), so I just removed the serieslink parameter. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Very good article, and I appreciate the effort you guys went to to fix it up. Passing.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)