Talk:Ka Makuahine A Me Ke Keikikane/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, I don't like to be the one bring the bad news, but this article is not the way it should be for GA. My main concern is for the lack of reception, which is not only a drawback on its completeness (WP:GA?, 3.a.) but also compromises its notability. There's only one review of the episode as an episode i.e. that shows "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Currently, TV Fanatic review and also two TV Line ([, ) focus on it (refs #3, 4 and 12 of this version). Although it may be obvious, the series's own main actor's interview is not appropriate to establish notability, and it's pretty much not within "reception" scope (it's definitely "production" stuff, but I'm not sure if it fits better this episode or the season's or even the series' article). Also, the article uses poor sources; for example, IMDb should not be used (see: [[WP:IMDb/RS]] and MOS:FILM) and "BestBuy.com" is not a good choice. That being said, "production" is good and the article as a whole may be not too far from the right path. Some more specific points:
 * per WP:INFOBOXREF, you should cite director, screenwriters and production code (it's also worth including it on the body, although it's in the lead)
 * the lead fails into "summariz[ing] the most important points covered in [the] article" since it doesn't mention anything on production or reception
 * "The episode aired on and aired on November 4, 2016"
 * "During the dinner Steve is contacted by his ex-girlfriend Catherine Rollins who informs him of an incident that she can not disclose over phone and that she will by drop by" → "During the dinner,... disclose over the phone..."
 * Maybe you could merge these short sentences "Catherine arrives at Steve's house. Steve introduces Lynn and Catherine to each other". For example, "Catherine arrives at Steve's house, where he introduces Lynn and Catherine to each other"
 * It would be better to break up this long sentence: "The two find a safe house to acquire satellite views and security plans and begin making a plan however before they finish Chin Ho Kelly, Kono Kalakaua, and Lou Grover arrive at the safe house and offer their assistance". Try something like a period after "plan" an "However,..."
 * Do the same (full stop and capitalization of "however") for the following "however" occurrence
 * "Steve and Doris find Yao and free him just as the team prepares to leave a security is alerted of their presence and sounds an alarm" – sounds like missing something... maybe a full period after "free him" or a connective word like "and"; also, "a security guard" would be more appropriate
 * "Steve, Doris, and Yao are then captured by a team of guards however they are shortly rescued by Catherine and Chin" – instead of "however they are shortly", try "just to be shortly..." to avoid the third repetition of "however" in a row and because it's misused
 * per WP:N'T, "would've" should be "would have"
 * "Back in Hawaii Chin" → "Back in Hawaii, Chin"
 * Please separate the two unrelated sentences in the end of the "plot" ("Back in Hawaii Chin is forced to face an empty home after losing Sara in a court custody battle also Lou attempts to get his son Will to find out who Danny's daughter Grace is dating")
 * WP:OVERLINK of common words like "detained", "rescued", "sewer tunnel", "airport", "propose" and "court"
 * Separate it: "Despite being credited in the opening title sequence Scott Caan, Masi Oka, and Jorge Garcia as Danny Williams, Max Bergman, and Jerry Ortega respectively were absent from the episode however Cann's character was mentioned multiple times within the episode" – a semicolon may work here
 * Although there is a full list of where it's available on "Broadcast, streaming, and home video releases" (that I'm not sure it's needed), there's no clue of what's the original network that broadcast the episode. "The episode aired on November 4, 2016" on "Viewing figures" seems the appropriate place for it in the body (it's important information for the lead too)
 * "The episode aired on November 4, 2016 and was watched live and same day by" – incomprehensible
 * "rank of 13 being the thirteenth" – kind of repetitive
 * expand TV Fanatic commentary on the episode, if there's content available on the source beyond the rating

Another editor could have quickfailed it for not being comprehensive (especially on reception) and bad sources (2b); however, I think it's also good to have a chance to improve. So, you have the usual seven days period to do your work on it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will begin working on it soon. The Doctor Who  (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered most of the points above. The only one I wasn't able to fix was the last one, the TV Fanatic source is mainly plot. Realizing I also forgot to replace the Best Buy source but I should be able to replace that easily.Other than that most everything else should be fixed. The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly improved. However, my main concern was not fixed: there's no significant critical reception at all. (O'Loughlin's interviews still feel displaced too.) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can move O'Loughlin's interview but if critical reception is your problem you'll have to fail the article. After a second and look I'm not able to find anything else significant for critical reception. The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, ok. I'm sorry to hear it. But since there's no way to improve it, then I'm failing it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. Just want to say thank you again for taking the time to review it.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)