Talk:The Last of Us season 1/GA1

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

Nominator: 02:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this article: Well-written?
Much of the prose describing episodic detailing has all been previously verified in respective articles. It takes only a glance to recognize such quality. Upon detailed inspection, any other details are written well here as well, and speak without blatant redundancy. Prose in the header section is a summary of key points throughout the article. It does not use citations in the section. This is keystone G/A qualification, and shows a keen representation of subject matter in the article.

Is this article: Verifiable w/ no original research?

 * Many finer details cite a podcast companioned with the show. Timestamps are proper, and this info is not contemptible. The podcast is used in tandem with other third-party sources, one of which will be addressed here. The podcast is not a source that one should expect false info from, and such info can be replaced with third-party sources if ever an opportunity should present itself.
 * CNET - WP:CNET is used as a review source. This however seems to be, from further inspection, a rare case in current times where a source from them is not contemptible. No issue is taken with this source, and no facts are claimed from the source. If facts were claimed from them, they would have to be subject to extensive corroboration, or, rather, cited from somewhere else. This is not the case, however, so such process is irrelevant here.

Unobviously owned sources have publisher cites. This attention to detail is a contributing factor for why this article should be considered for G/A status. This shows the article goes above and beyond in terms of finer details. A sentiment reflected throughout.

WP:SYNTHESIS is not present, no risqué or unclear sources are used for factual information. Nor is such information boiled together in a melting pot to get to any inaccurate conclusions.

Is this article: Broad in its coverage?
Yes. Fine details from episodes are kept in their appropriate and respective dedicated articles. Such info covered in both is kept broad here, and detailed there. The article makes use of directions to more detailed sources of information, which makes me wonder, "should this be a good topic on its own when the show ends?" Very good development here. I notice a well-done statement of copying. This makes for a good argument that this article not only follows good procedures, but also ties together with other info. This is good. This is G/A material.

Is this article: Neutral?
All information from here is not trying to push anyone's opinion. Opinions from third-party reviewers are not presented in a factual context, instead as as "two-cents", or input addition to describe topics and subjects (the reactions to them) in detail.

Is this article: Stable?
No edit wars appear to have happened here. I see nothing indicating this article has received undue attention. The article had not been protected in more recent or current times to curtail any vandalism, so that main indicator gives no reason for suspicion. This season of the TV series has been done for over a year, so no influx of details is expected to come in.

Is this article: Illustrated?

 * Obviously, due to issues pertaining to wikipedia itself, a graph detailing ep.-by-ep. critical response is not functioning. However, a quick look at the source code provides that this RT graph would have worked had the issue not existed, and would have added to the informational quality of the article.

Standard Blu-Ray cover art as infobox image: This is used under fair use policies, and illustrates the season effectively.

Filming images are tagged from twitter/reddit under fair use. these images illustrate in an informational way nigh-impossible without their inclusion. They are constructive, and therefore do belong.

The Game Awards footage still is from the YouTube broadcast, and is used as illustration appropriately for the promotion section.

Free-use images of actors: there is a number of free-use images of actors.

I want to quote an example here of an infobox image.

This, among other various examples, has WP:OVERREF. Inline cited text supports the claim made here, and is redundant to include in the infobox. These should be removed for ease-of-browsing. This prevails in many places, being widespread enough for this to be a concern.

Also, the critical response section does a good job at citing where guest performers are praised in the text, the block of cite-cite-cite-cite-cite is however redundant and unsightly.

The silliest example of the redundant cites has to be here. The info necessary to cite that these two star is in prose right next to the infobox. 'Tis a very good illustration, but, sheesh! This could do without.

Main

 * Pedro Pascal as Joel Miller, a hardened middle-aged survivor who is tormented by the trauma of his past. Joel is tasked with smuggling a young girl, Ellie, out of a quarantine zone and across the United States. Joel is portrayed as more physically vulnerable in the series compared to the gamehe is hard of hearing in one ear and his knees ache when he stands.
 * Bella Ramsey as Ellie, a 14-year-old girl who displays much defiance and anger but has a private need for kinship and belonging. She is strong-willed but has not lost her playfulness, bonding easily with children, and has a fondness for puns. She is immune to the Cordyceps infection and may be the key to creating a vaccine.

Main concerns, and this can pass to GA status
Tend to the WP:OVERREF in the infoboxes. I plan on then passing this review. Good job to everyone who cooked up this article!

I just made the ever so minor edits myself
I'm passing this. Don't know where Rhain was, but I've gone ahead and done those fixes for WP:OVERREF. BarntToust (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I appreciate your kindness and thoroughness. To clarify, image captions should be referenced per WP:WHYCITE, so I've reverted your edits. Regarding Don't know where Rhain was: it was less than five hours between you finished your review (3 a.m. local time for me, FWIW) and made the edits; reviews with outstanding issues are typically expected to last about seven days per WP:GAN/I. I would have been happy to talk through your concerns here before any action was made, instead of having to catch up afterwards and revert mostly everything. Regardless, thanks again for your thoughts. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I was definitely jumping the gun there, Rhain. As a wise frog once said, "Patience! Patience!". That's something I'll be tending to regarding myself. As for you: Thanks for your work on clearing up my misconceptions, and for also nom-ing the season and its episodes for a good topic. It's been a pleasure to seal the deal on this good topic so that everyone's work, (including and part by yours), has paid off! With very warm regards, BarntToust (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)