Talk:Who Ya Gonna Call?/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I will review.  Ruby  2010/  2013  05:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay with this -- I created the review and then promptly forgot about it. I should be able to add my review within a few days. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:13, 9 April 2014 (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, 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
 * The series follows Shawn Spencer (James Roday) and his colleague and best friend Burton "Gus" Guster (Dulé Hill), who claim to operate a psychic detective agency; it is actually based on Shawn's hyperobservant ability.. -- what is "it" referring to? The series, or the psychic detective agency?
 *  "Who Ya Gonna Call?" was the only episode directed by Michael Lange. -- recommend changing to "only episode of Psych... "
 * That long list of crew members in the Production section definitely aren't needed, and is a bit boring to read! I assume that these people perform these same roles for every episode of this season like most television shows? I would recommend just sticking with the main crew, such as the episode's writers and director. If there's something unique about this episode (such as its music), then I would include them. But it doesn't seem that there is.
 * ... the installment, like the majority of Psych's episodes, was filmed in and around the Vancouver area of British Columbia. -- By mentioning "majority", this makes me wonder which episodes were not filmed there. That led me to wonder whether the claim of this being filmed there was supported by the sources you include. This doesn't mention BC or Vancouver at all (at least that I can see), and I'm skeptical that the audio commentary for the pilot episode would specifically mention this episode as being shot there. Could you provide an explanation, and/or provide alternative citations for this claim?
 * Related to the above comment, I'm a tad concerned that you're inserting generalizations about the shows's overall production and applying them to this episode -- do any of the citations you include in the first two Production paragraphs mention this episode explicitly? Or do they just mention "every episode"? I'm willing to look past this but would like to hear your thoughts first.


 * Who described Frank Whaley as an actor that fades into the background?
 * ...beginning by pointing out how the episode put " a little twist on who committed the crime -- there's an errant space in there
 * That screenshot is not needed, as "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Readers will definitely be able to picture a woman in a pantsuit without the use of a screenshot (I know I could, and I haven't watched this series).
 * I found a Highbeam article that might be worth incorporating: (it talks about the use of flashbacks in every episode, which I see this installment includes). No obligation to include it but I thought it might be worth reading.

Alrighty, that's about it. This article is well-cited and mostly well-written, but there just remains a few points that I'd like to hear your feedback on. Once you've responded to my comments above, I'll check back and give the article another quick review. This is on my watchlist, so I'll check back then. Now placing article on hold for seven days. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No response yet for this review. Pinging . It'd be a shame to have to fail this, especially when it's so close!  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, it's been about a month since I put this on hold, and there has been no response to this review. I am thus failing it. It is very close to passing, however, so I would recommend the nominator review my comments and consider renominating it when he or she is ready to devote some time to it. Regards,  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)