Talk:Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am going to give this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * I think it looks rather visual odd to have the Release section have three individual subsections of a single sentence in each... Also, why doe the "plot" section have no references? Shearonink (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the Release section, and per MOS:TVPLOT we use the episode as the primary source for a plot summary (this is the same for all film and TV articles). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. The episode itself is not cited as the source? Thanks for fixing the Release section. Shearonink (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You will see at other TV and film articles that the subject isn't cited there either, for a plot summary. But using an episode as a source elsewhere, for example, would need a cite. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * I just want to check that the references follow a consistent style.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * These all check out so far. Will do some more passes and digging but it all looks good to go so far.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - none found.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I do wish more images could be added to break up the text a bit but realize that this show is heavily-copyrighted and images are probably hard to come by. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added an image to the critical response section to support some commentary there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good find - I think adding images where possible and if they are relevant etc. can help to breakup the text a bit. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I do wish more images could be added to break up the text a bit but realize that this show is heavily-copyrighted and images are probably hard to come by. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added an image to the critical response section to support some commentary there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good find - I think adding images where possible and if they are relevant etc. can help to breakup the text a bit. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comment: On the whole, a well-written summation of a TV episode. Gives the reader information without devolving into mounds of trivia. I am doing additional read-throughs and was reminded of something that had bothered me on my first few passes.
 * In the lead, there's a phrase "..as they cross the new Advanced Threat Containment Unit and monstrous Lash while hunting..." I think I understand the intended meaning - that they crossed paths with the ATCUnit and the villain or that they made the ATCUnit & Lash angry or they went against the villains - but am concerned about the word-choice.  I think that sentence could be adjusted somewhat to make the intended meaning more clear...maybe the word-choice is kind of slang?
 * The Lash character is described as "monstrous" in both the lead and in the Plot section but there is no explanation of why he is monstrous. In the obverse, Coulson & his crew are not described as virtuous or whatever...  I think the use of the adjective is somewhat fancrufty and should be either removed or adjusted (by adding a short description about why the character is monstrous or something along those lines). Shearonink (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to adjust the line in the lead. As for Lash, we are using the term "monstrous" per the dictionary definition of "having the ugly or frightening appearance of a monster", so I don't think it is fancrufty. I could try give a different description, but I think going into details would become a bit problematic (all the other characters have basic descriptions like being an agent or Inhuman only to keep the summary basic and clean). Also, the page Lash (comics) shows what the character looks like in the comics and the show, and that is linked several times from here. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The common usage I am more familiar with is "monstrous" (as in evil deeds or as in behavior), not monstrous (as in appearance). I see that in the comic-book/Marvel literature & reviews he is almost universally referred to as "the monstrous Lash".  I still disagree with the usage, but that doesn't mean I'm right, just means I have a different understanding of the word and that's cool.  I still need to do a few in-depth readings of the article.  I should get back to you within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I really like the way this article lays out the facts about this episode - it walks the fine line between its enthusiastic fanbase and the general population. If a reader came to this article knowing not very much about the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Agent Coulson, they would get a good introduction and yet the article doesn't devolve into a list of trivia that only a Marvel expert would understand. The only possible improvement I could suggest would be to perhaps include a "Notes" section where an explanation of the term "monstrous Lash" and its usage could be fleshed out a bit. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Shearonink! I'll have a good think about your suggestion here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)