Talk:The Gift of the Woodi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 03:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I'm concerned about whether the number of websites being cited is too few in the Reception section. The Legacy section is nice, but for how people actually thought of the episode, it's a little sparse. I did some digging and found (a source being critical of the Rebecca/Lilith subplot) and  (cites the episode as one of Cheers' great moments).
 * I've been already using the latter source, but the source specified only the whole scene, not the whole episode itself. Will try to use the former source soon. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Added another source. --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To address the number of sources being "too few", those are as much as I can find. The reliable sources significantly discussing the episode have been scarce or rare as of date. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Production section is also quite light. Is there anything more that can be added?
 * Unfortunately, that's as much as I can find. I tried finding reliable sources discussing the production notes of the episodes, but that ended up almost empty-handed. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The way that Cliff's subplot is presented suggests there's more to it (which I assume is not the case, knowing Cliff). Perhaps it could be readjusted to be a little more final? Not having seen this episode, it feels like seeking public opinion could be a simple joke, and alternatively it could end at not taking his feedback seriously.
 * Unfortunately, Cliff's subplot ended as-is, especially without adding implications. I can't be certain what else happened after Cliff left the bar for public opinion, but consider that the subplot lasted just one episode. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure whether removal of the passage changes the meaning of the plot or was the right thing to do. I should have told you earlier that, after the man's dubious feedback, Cliff offers Kelly a "betabaga fajita on a pita" sample, but then she responds, "No hablo español, señor", assuming that Cliff was speaking Spanish. Then again, that doesn't stop Cliff from serving the samples elsewhere, making the scene not necessary to be mentioned there. How about this: "[...] man's feedback seriously but to serve samples elsewhere" or "man's feedback seriously. Cliff offers "betabaga fajita on a pita" to Kelly, but she replies, "No hablo español, señor""? George Ho (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead feels a little light. Consider expanding the details of its legacy and reception, as well as mentioning the Cliff and Rebecca subplots.
 * Yes check.svg Expanded lede. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The detail in the popular culture section about Barry dunking on Rob feels extraneous, that should be cut out.
 * Barry was implying that Rob could be wrong about the episode itself since Barry didn't specify which episode. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% convinced on whether the song itself needs to be on the article. It feels like it could suffice to simply describe the song as Woody singing her name multiple times before finally singing her name spelled out.
 * On one hand, possibly the song would be already understood without the audio clip itself. However, the song itself is very iconic part of the episode, and readers would not understand without the audio why the song makes the episode more well known than it should. Perhaps I could cut out Woody spelling out Kelly's name, so the audio can play just Woody repeating her name. Also, I feel that prose related to the audio clip itself isn't that necessary (yet). George Ho (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's fair. I think if it does stay, the spelling could probably be fine. - Bryn (talk)  (contributions) 06:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Image and music rationale needs to be stronger, particularly the last three rows. Should replace n.a. with something substantive, and "This article only" is implicit for that specific fair use rationale, but that doesn't prevent another article from using the file.
 * Yes check.svg Expanded the rows. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)