Talk:Sense and Antisense (Millennium)/GA1

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 03:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Infobox: When writing dates, use the start date template, only for infoboxes, tables, stuff like that
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox: Where is the production code referenced? There should be something at IGN or epguides, or at the very least, the DVD set
 * Trimmed it out. Not available on IGN or the DVD set, though I might give epguides a look. I'm unfamiliar with it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for production codes if you'd like to add them back, for more information. Cheers, TBrandley 17:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox: Where is the running time referenced? There should be something at the iTunes Store
 * Infobox: Where are the guest actors referenced? Anything at Radio Times, etc.
 * These two are sourced to the episode itself; much the same as the plot and the starring cast (be a bit weird to take Lance Henriksen based on the episode but not Allan Zinyck or Clarence Williams, to me). GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox: Could you cut down the red links? They look weird. Lol.
 * Looking into possibly creating John Peter Kousakis soon, Zinyk I believe is a reasonably seasoned stage actor and could also be created. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: Pretty sure that crime and thriller are overlinks, thus a violation of WP:OVERLINK
 * Have removed both. GRAPPLE   X
 * Lede: "premiered" should be "originally aired"
 * Lede: Only Fox should be linked, without network
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: "some folk". Could you clarify?
 * Oh shit, this is embarrassing; that was from my work-in-progress draft to remind me to actually add in some folk. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: Add "The show centers on ... In this episode, ..." to second paragraph before plot summary to let viewers know.
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: Summary seems a bit small
 * Is this still the case with the above addition factored in? That paragraph is now doubled. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: The lede seems to be a little short, and may violate WP:LEDE. Nielsen rating, etc. Considering that, if nothing more can be added, perhaps merge into two paragraphs, because, right now, it seems short for three
 * As above; the addition of actual guest cast (oops) and a summary of the premise of the series have boosted this out a little. How does it seem now? GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. TBrandley 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: "has" is not needed before "received"
 * Fair enough. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: "mixed responses" seems weird. How about: "mixed reviews"
 * Rephrased entirely. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: "in its initial broadcast" → "upon its initial broadcast"
 * Done. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede: "in its initial broadcast" where? In Canada, UK, US, France, Germany? (For the record, I know it's the US, just to clarify with some that do not know)
 * We've already got "It premiered on the Fox network in the United States on October 3, 1997"'; not sure if something needs a reminder only two paragraphs later. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. It can be kept. :) TBrandley 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot: The paragraphs are really short detracting from the readability of it. Could you merge some paragraphs?
 * Really? I've merged two but before that there were only five paragraphs and the shortest was still two-and-a-half lines; and I use quite a high screen resolution at that. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Well done! TBrandley 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot: "drug addict" a link?
 * Linked to Substance dependence. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Production: comma is missing after "' final episode"
 * Was intentional but I've added one. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Production: Any image to add? Or something else in article.
 * Broadcast and reception: Only Fox should be linked, without network
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadcast and reception: "Nielsen rating of 6.7 during its original broadcast". That makes me think that it earned a Nielsen rating when the episode was airing. Re-write.
 * ...Well it did; the views were gained while it was on air. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. TBrandley 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadcast and reception: "The episode received mixed reviews from critics" → "This episode generally received mixed reviews from critics"
 * Added. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadcast and reception: C+ → "C+"
 * I'm probably missing something, what's the difference here? GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadcast and reception: "VanDerWerff found the episode "entertaining". Due to the previous sentence, perhaps add "Despite this," to the beginning of it.
 * Notes: 1997–1998 should be 1997–98, as per WP:YEAR
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notes: Link 1997–1998 television season
 * Which article do you want here? Same goes for below. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * References: Ref. 1, 2, 3 - Link the television seasons, then remove the "19"'s from it, as per WP:YEAR. See above.
 * References: Ref. 4 - I feel that citing/referencing the episode is original research
 * Just a comment: All the episode's say who wrote/directed them, it's only a different medium. It's not original research, because I, for instance, could get a hold of the DVDs and verify who wrote/directed the episodes. It would be original research if the episode's didn't tell who wrote/directed them, and I added the info based on an email I had with the producer, or info I found from a fansite. My two cents.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   19:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto; the episode is being cited for its credits. I could add a book source for this but I don't feel that there's anything interpretive about taking a work's credits at face value. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * References: Ref. 5 - Publish day?
 * Don't have it, I'm afraid. Searching online doesn't seem to be giving me anything for it either. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * References: Ref. 8 - Double quotes (") should be single quotes ('), as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS and WP:MOSQUOTE. It is to avoid doubling.
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * References: Ref. 10 - Remove "DVD Talk Review of the DVD Video" from title
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * References: Red links
 * As before. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * External links: Or a lack of one. Perhaps add links from IMDb, or TV.com. This can prove that the article is brove in its coverage
 * Brove? Added a few. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * External links: Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work on this article. In good shape, I will be happy to pass once the above issues are addressed. TBrandley 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have addressed or responded to everything; sorry for taking a while to get back to this, been entertaining over the weekend so I hadn't time to sit for half an hour and comb over it. Thanks for taking the time to review it. GRAPPLE   X  17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely fine. Hope you enjoyed your weekend! This article is good now; I fixed the other very minor concerns. Pass. Cheers, TBrandley 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)