Talk:The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK then, allow me to pick this apart. Not necessarily every issue I raise here will be a requirement for a GA pass, but I like to be thorough even when I have no idea what I'm talking about, of which Buffy is a perfect example! I'll list points to be looked at by section and possibly some general points at the bottom. If the review has to be put on hold, I'll leave it open for as long as it takes for things to be addressed, providing work is being done. I tend to be pretty informal about GA reviewing because I don't think we need to etiquette of an FAC. Any issues, reply here or ping my talk page and I'll get back to you. I'd appreciate it if you could reply to specific points by indenting your comment under my bullet point with either done or a comment. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
Overall, this is very nice. It's of good length and seems to cover everything it should. There are a few minor points, though:
 * The opening of the third paragraph reads more like a TV review than an encyclopaedia.
 * "Astonished" is quite a strong term. Is that quoting from a source? If so, it should be cited.
 * What is cite not #1 doing? That fact doesn't seem so extraordinary as to require a cite in the lead and since the lead is a summary, the fact should be included and cited in the body. [Citations in lead sections are one of my pet peeves!]

Plot

 * Since this is the first section, we should assume that the reader hasn't bothered to read your lovingly crafted lead section, so give characters their full names for their first mention
 * Likewise with Scoobies & any other Buffy-specific terms
 * It seems quite long, but not disproportionately so. Probably worth a look to see if anything can be trimmed without loosing valuable information.
 * Who is Dawn and is her age relevant?
 * A little for those who (like me!) have no idea wtf is going on would be nice.
 * The last two paragraphs could probably be given a bot of a trim of unnecessary plot detail.


 * Cite no. 1 is for a fairly significant point: it's considered the best episode of television ever broadcast. Not just the best Buffy episode, but best episode ever.
 * There was a Background section that was removed after I wrote the article as some editors felt it was unnecessary, which I find inexplicable. The background section described the premise of the show, the characters, their relationships to each other, and the events that immediately led to this episode. By removing the background section, some of the details had to be placed in the Plot section, making it larger. I'd like to replace the Background section because it helps orient readers to what they're going to encounter. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew there had to be a background section somewhere- and I agree, it needs a return. Courcelles (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the citations, HJ said #1, and Moni, you're talking about citation 2 as it currently appears. Regarding those- "best episode ever" is cite note 2, cite note 1 as it appears right now is attributing a view to a specific person, so it has to stay, as well, #2 is an extraordinary claim, #1 per the rule on quotations, even if there aren't any quote marks, attributing a view to a person requires a cite every time you do it. Courcelles (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly re-adding the background section would seem a sensible idea to get readers acquainted with the series. It should also allow you to shorten the plot section a little. As for the cites, I see the first has been removed and the second (or first as it is now) is an extraordinary claim, which is why I didn't mention it despite my pet peeve! I'll have a read through the rest of it an give you some more feedback in a minute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If GA requires repeating the background in 144 (or even three) parallel articles rather than using links, then to hell with GA. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realise that an ideal article is usable if printed out and given to someone, right? Because you seem to be actively arguing to decrease the quality of this and similar articles. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, because that's a really helpful comment. We have to cater for all readers- not all readers will be familiar with Buffy and should be able to catch up on the basics without having to go to another article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me an article that does not use links to provide background, and I'll show you an article that's wastefully long. Not all readers know what a uniform polyhedron is, so does every article about a uniform polyhedron define it? No, they each link to uniform polyhedron. I've always thought that an advantage of a web-based reference, rather than a flaw: those unfamiliar with the background can readily get it, and those who do know it need not scroll through it again. Silly me: obviously the measure of a webpage's quality is how it reads on paper. — I'll go away now. —Tamfang (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Background
Some, if not all of this, needs to be restored, restoring it is going to take massaging the plot section's prose, but removing it was, IMO, a decrease in article quality.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (often simplified as Buffy) exhibited a writing style unique to television when it aired. The seasons portray Buffy and her friends fighting one apocalyptic evil force to defeat it by the end of the season, called the Big Bad by the characters. Interspersed between "Big Bad" episodes are stand-alone episodes that address singular anomalies or lesser evils. Other mutli-episode story arcs address the interpersonal relationships between Buffy, her family, friends, and their respective romantic attachments. Each season has an overall theme, as noted by Buffy scholar Roz Kaveney; episodes in the fifth season address family and belonging.

Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) is assisted from season one by her close friends, collectively referring to themselves as the "Scooby Gang", consisting of Xander Harris (Nicholas Brendon), a young man without any particular strengths or talents, but who is devoted and loyal to Buffy and her calling; and Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan), a shy but academically gifted student who begins to dabble in magic as the series progresses. They are mentored by Rupert Giles (Anthony Stewart Head), Buffy's "Watcher", and joined by Xander's girlfriend Anya Jenkins (Emma Caulfield), who was a vengeance demon until her powers were taken away. Anya often is at a loss for how to communicate with humans and her speech is frequently abrupt. In the fourth season, Willow became romantically involved with Tara Maclay (Amber Benson), another woman with magical powers. Tara, although quiet, is accepted as a member of their extended family.

The fifth season introduced Dawn (Michelle Trachtenberg), Buffy's 14-year-old sister, who was placed in the Summers household by mysterious monks as a vessel called the "key". Dawn's blood is able to open a portal to hell, and Buffy must protect her from a goddess named Glory, who is the fifth season's Big Bad. Although Dawn is new to earth and to Buffy's world, the beings who placed her there also implanted memories in all the characters to seem as if she has been there all along. Buffy learned early in the fifth season what Dawn is, not completely trusting her. When Joyce Summers (Kristine Sutherland) began experiencing headaches at the beginning of the fifth season, once collapsing and requiring hospitalization, Buffy's panic translated into violent accusations that Dawn was causing Joyce's illness. Joyce subsequently had a brain tumor removed and had been recovering quite well. Dawn discovers what she really is in the previous fifth season episode "Blood Ties", but Buffy convinces her that they are indeed family. In the episode preceding "The Body", "I Was Made to Love You", Joyce received flowers from a male suitor, which Buffy finds at the end of that episode.

Critical reception
Could probably do with a copy edit. No major issues, but there are a few points:
 * Sentence variety- far too many sentences start with the same phrase. You'd be slated for that in an FAC
 * Gareth McLean in The Guardian- he isn't in the paper himself, wrote in The Guardian or something similar would be beeter
 * Actually, this is acceptable American English, and changing to to Person x writing in newspaper would be highly repetitive. Courcelles (talk)
 * At Salon.com, Joyce Millman writes... should be in the past tense and "at Salon.com" seems an odd way of phrasing it
 * Why? None of the other reviews are written in past-tense. talking about a single one in past tense would be odd. Courcelles (talk)
 * While praising Gellar's often under-appreciated acting leads the reader to expect a negative comment in the other half of the sentence. Since there isn't one, "while" is not the best way to start the sentence.
 * You're right- reworded. Courcelles (talk)
 * Despite such praise... sounds like a personal commentary
 * reworded. Courcelles (talk)
 * Linking Sci-fi and fantasy is probably overlinking- that guideline disallows the use of (imho) much more relevant links.
 * Unlinked for now. If ultimately linked, I think it would make more sense to link each term's first use, not the last. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

General

 * All your external links are working
 * No links to dab pages
 * This is extremely picky, but File:Buffy5x16.jpg needs an explanation as to why a portion of the image can't be used
 * Added. Cropping would obviously alter the way in which the scene was framed, which is discussed fairly extensively. Courcelles (talk)
 * FUR for File:The Body sound and silence.ogv looks good
 * The citations style is... interesting. I don't foresee it being a major issue, though
 * Yes, it is. ;)  I find it strange operating without the templates, too. Courcelles (talk)
 * You shall be liberated from cite templates! Go free, children, and type your citations by hand! --Moni3 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Summing up
All in all, this is an impressive piece of work and there are only a few minor issues which should be pretty easy to fix. I'll leave it to you to work out what, if anything, you're going to do with the background section. Other than that, I'll keep an eye on this, but let me know if you need anything. Once everything's resolved, I'll be happy to pass it. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking back to see if there are any other issues to resolve. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me have a look. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy that this easily meets the GA criteria, but if you were to take it to FAC, which you should, you'll need to work on the sentence variety in the critical reception section. Congratulations. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)