Talk:The Stag Convergence/GA3

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have this in about a fortnight. 23W 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Sorry for the long-ass wait.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
 * 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:

Comments
All for now. Will have more to say shortly. 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 08:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that all that exists for the production section?
 * I've managed to find out when it was filmed. It was the antipenultimate date to be listed in the 2011/12 TBBT ticket section on here; I've added a note similar to The Convention Conundrum. I can't find anything else to add to the production section. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks better. I would merge the paragraphs somehow, though. 23W (talk · [ stalk] )
 * Merged. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe rephrase this as:
 * Done. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * —change to:  (as the Nielsen rating system is the  way to formulate a Nielsen rating).
 * Done. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * —change to:  (or something to that extent; less sentences needed and sounding less repetitive is the point).
 * Done. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The TV Critic review should probably be merged into the penultimate paragraph for the critical response section.
 * Why? Personally, I prefer the paragraphs the way they are, and if anything think they're a little bit too large - the first paragraph might put me off if I was reading the article. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, considering the previous paragraphs incorporate multiple reviewers, and this last one is fairly small, I think it would fit just fine into the second one.
 * Okay, now the first paragraph's shorter, I think I'm happy with merging the TV Critic review. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd paraphrase the hell out of Shaffer's review, especially when the quotes span multiple sentences. 23W (talk · [ stalk] )
 * I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean, but I've tried to rephrase the review and quotes no longer cover multiple sentences. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe condense it or something. Having Shaffer's review be twice as long as Sava's is kind of weird, though, granted, his review is slightly longer.
 * Now that I see it, perhaps you should condense all reviews to two or three sentences at most. Maybe it reflects a change in my own writing style, but the less quotes crammed into it and the more you paraphrase their ideas, the better it reads. 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, yep - personally, I think Shaffer kind of missed the point anyway. I've condensed Shaffer's review. I can't see any other reviews that stick out for being too long - do you think any others need shortening? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. 23W (talk · [ stalk] )
 * Looking good. Hope you can see where I'm coming from with the quotation issues. 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also drop:    Unless the drop was discussed by secondary sources I wouldn't include this. Ratings are generally a crapshoot; I don't think including this would help readers. 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 19:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Done. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, pass. If you ever find more for the production section, please do include. 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)