Talk:Reciprocity (Fringe)/GA1

GA Review
#:: :''This review is transcluded from Talk:Reciprocity (Fringe)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 05:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * "believed an artifact of the "First People", has been assembled" -> "believed to be" might work better.
 *  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Olivia (or "Fauxlivia" and God I hate that name) is mentioned before the mention which Anna Torv is appended to. Perhaps this could be rephrased? Perhaps "Fauxlivia (Anna Torv)—Olivia's parallel universe doppelgänger—stole one component" would work.
 *  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Peter returns with Olivia (Anna Torv) and Walter (John Noble) to Massive Dynamic to undergo some tests to see if he was the cause for the device's activation, while Broyles (Lance Reddick) asks Astrid (Jasika Nicole) to discreetly review the files pulled from Fauxlivia's computer for any hidden messages, not wishing to have Olivia or Peter be forced to learn of what Fauxlivia wrote about them." -> I think this could be broken down into maybe two or three sentences. Perhaps "Peter returns with Olivia (Anna Torv) and Walter (John Noble) to Massive Dynamic to undergo some tests to see if he was the cause for the device's activation. Meanwhile, Broyles (Lance Reddick) asks Astrid (Jasika Nicole) to discreetly review the files pulled from Fauxlivia's computer for any hidden messages, not wishing to have Olivia or Peter be forced to learn of what Fauxlivia wrote about them."
 *  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The next day, the corpse of a shapeshifter is found, shot in the head and its data disc missing" -> What's its data disc? Maybe link to something relevant if possible.
 * Clarified  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Since the parallel universe was revealed in the season two finale, viewers have debated nicknames for the various doppelgangers featured. Olivia Dunham's double from the parallel universe was one such matter of contention; such nicknames included Bolivia, Fauxlivia, and Altlivia. "Reciprocity" was believed by some critics to have resolved this, as one character refers to the character as Fauxlivia.[1][5][6]" -> One use of "character" should probably be dropped. And do all these citations back up the whole section quoted here? If they're for individual parts of it then perhaps scatter them to reduce the clumping together of citations—if one backs up the speculative names, list it right after those, for instance.
 * The three cites are there because I mention "some critics"; all are referring to the mention of Fauxlivia, hence them being placed at the end of the paragraph  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Grand-o then. GRAPPLE   X  06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "With time-shifted viewers" -> Maybe it's just because I'm from a backwards country, but what are these? I'm assuming it's the additional viewer numbers based on people using services like Sky+, am I right in this?
 * Time shifting is simply using a device like Sky+ or Tivo to record something on television. I added a little more info on this in article, along with a relevent wikilink  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "thought the episode did a good job tricking the audience from realizing Peter was responsible for the shapeshifter killings" -> "tricking the audience into thinking Peter was not responsible", you don't trick someone from something.
 *  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * MOS seems grand.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Apart from the aforementioned instance of possible citation clustering, this one's grand.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Scope seems okay, though regrettably no section is big enough to contain that picture without it poking into another.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article is neutral and unbiased.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * History is grand, no controversy or instability.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Images are fine. One is commons, used as well as it can be given its size (protrudes into a second heading but this is unavoidable). The other is non-free but its rationale is alright.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few 1A concerns to deal with here. Should be another notch in the next GTC soon enough. Holding it until these are seen to. GRAPPLE   X  05:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Images are fine. One is commons, used as well as it can be given its size (protrudes into a second heading but this is unavoidable). The other is non-free but its rationale is alright.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few 1A concerns to deal with here. Should be another notch in the next GTC soon enough. Holding it until these are seen to. GRAPPLE   X  05:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! I was able to track down a little more production info from a DVD special feature, so hopefully that makes the section long enough for the image on your screen. Your other comments have also been addressed. Thanks again,  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suits me. And good to hear there's some more production info out there. This one's good to go, then. Well done. GRAPPLE   X  06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)