Talk:The Convention Conundrum/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 08:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll take this one. 23W 08:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Specific[edit]

  • 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC):
    • The Big Bang Buzz is a self-published source, as is The DR Club. SpoilerTV ain't looking to reliable either, but especially the last two. Tagged these with {{verify credibility}} accordingly. 23W 09:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      (Regarding the first source:) I've found plenty of websites saying the taping date is January 21, 2014 (e.g. [1][2][3]) - The Big Bang Buzz source was the most reliable I could find. The websites where you can get the tickets have dates but don't link them to the episode name (or even a production code); however, this page proves that an episode of the show was recorded on January 21. If you look at these two archives as well, you can count along and find that the 15th date in the list is January 21, but the episode aired 14th. On the other hand, the production code is "3X5315", but I'm not sure if that's sufficient proof that the episode was recorded 15th.
      I could link the first web archive without explanation, but I fear an explanation similar to above ("count along...") would be classed as original research. Alternatively, the fact could simply be removed, but I would hate removing something that I know is true and relevant.
      Question? I'm not exactly clear; could you give me an example of what you would state using the tvtickets.com site as a ref? 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly the same as what is there now: "The episode was filmed on January 21, 2014." Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      (Regarding the other two:) The DR Club is unreliable - I have removed it. I am feeling very conflicted over SpoilerTV but I've gone ahead and removed it because the source didn't really add that much to the article. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      checkY Cool. 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image of Fisher appears very small in my browser, and if her role was that minor it shouldn't be included IMO.
      I can increase the size if you want - or, since you're the one looking at it and seeing a problem, you could choose a new size and change it yourself. IMO, it is an image worth including because Fisher is a big star and even a short cameo counts. Some of the sources (tvline, avclub) have mentioned/complimented her. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Question? Changed the size. I'm indifferent either way whether it's included or not, but "Such-and-such appears briefly in the episode" full stop isn't a very strong caption. 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      What would you prefer? "The episode features a cameo appearance by Carrie Fisher." "Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in Star Wars, makes a guest appearance in "The Convention Conundrum"." Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The production section is quite stumpy. Looking through the refs, it seems you got most out of them, but if you can logically merge them into one or two paragraphs it would look more pleasant.
      I tend to prefer smaller blocks of text but that's partially because of the way my browser is. I've merged the first two paragraphs. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      checkY 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason Pierson's negative review is featured first? Logically I'd place it as the last review or as its own paragraph at the bottom, especially since most reviews were positive.
      It's a stylistic issue I'm not too bothered about, so, changed. I've given it its own paragraph but if you wanted to merge it into the second, feel free. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Question? Now that I see it, I think the reasons he thought it was bad should be given. 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      checkY Done. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the running time and director needs inline citations in the infobox; the subject is about the episode, which can be used as a primary source.
      Okay. Removed. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      checkY 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this sentence in the lead:
    The episode features guest appearances by James Earl Jones and Carrie Fisher, actors on Star Wars
    would be better suited for the production section (it would probably help to expand it).
    I've left it in the lead (minus "actors on Star Wars" and the ref) but also included it in the production section. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments coming up. 23W 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • [22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)] I've filled out the checklist and indented your comments, if you don't mind. The article looks much better, but some other things I notice:
  • The ratings section is quite wordy, and dedicating four paragraphs to what is just a bunch of numbers is a bit odd anyways (compared to the reviews). I think condensing the bits about the shows it dominated over would remedy this; e.g.:
Ratings
On the night of its first broadcast on January 30, 2014 at 8 p.m., the episode was watched by 19.05 million households in the U.S.[n] Including 5.70 viewers watching on DVR, the episode was watched by 24.75 million viewers in total.[n] It received a Nielsen rating of 11.3/14 overall,[n] and 5.2/15 for viewers aged 18 to 49.[n] The episode was most watched in its timeslot,[n] the most watched episode on CBS on the night of January 30, and, because every prime time episode on CBS was top in its timeslot, the most watched episode overall that night.[n]
In Canada, the episode aired at the same time as in America, on CTV Television Network and was watched by 4.38 million viewers, ranking it third on both Canadian television and CTV that week.[n] Australia first broadcast the episode on Nine Network on March 25, 2014, and was watched by 994,000 households. It was ranked third on the network that night and eighth on cable.[n] In the UK, it aired on May 1, 2014 on E4. The episode received 1.84 million viewers (according to BARB), ranking it number 1 that week on the channel; the episode had 0.46 million viewers on E4 +1, giving it a total of 2.31 million viewers.[n]
  • Speaking of which, "top in its timeslot" doesn't really make much sense to me. If every other show broadcast on CBS that night beat the competition, how would that conclude with TBBT being the most watched of the group, let alone overall? (This could also be a byproduct of how I condensed the information above. I dunno.)
  • Every episode on CBS got top in its timeslot. The Big Bang Theory was top on CBS. ∴ The Big Bang Theory was the most watched episode that night.
    It's probably my fault with the weird phrasing. I've condensed it almost exactly how you've suggested. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly out of scope: the part about restraining orders in the plot looks weird with the references intermixed. Perhaps you could bundle the citations, like so:
He has [[restraining orders]] from Lee, Nimoy and Nye so he asks Leonard to contact them.<ref name="S07E07">
* For the episode where Sheldon is given restraining orders from Lee and Nimoy, see: {{cite episode | title=The Excelsior Acquisition | date=March 1, 2010 | episodelink=The Excelsior Acquisition | series=The Big Bang Theory | serieslink=The Big Bang Theory | season=3 | number=16}}
* For the episode where Sheldon is given a restraining order from Nye, see: {{cite episode | title=The Proton Displacement | date=November 7, 2013 | episodelink=The Proton Displacement | series=The Big Bang Theory | serieslink=The Big Bang Theory | season=7 | number=7}}</ref>

That's all for now. 23W 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of the above is good, except that The Big Bang Buzz cannot be used as a source. I believe that tvtickets.com is authoritative enough that it can be used reliably (as a primary source) as long as you provide a note in the citation somewhere explaining how it substantiates that it was taped on the 21st. 23W 22:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've changed it. I've also changed the first image's caption to mention that Fisher played Princess Leia (James Earl Jones playing Darth Vader is already implied by "...used scuba equipment to create the sound of Darth Vader's breathing" although I could state it explicitly). Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Looks good! One more thing while we're at it (sorry) could you possibly add a one-sentence synopsis to the lead (after the first paragraph maybe)? It'll summarize the article better. 23W 09:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A synopsis is already in the lead (sort of). Rather than having two separate guest star/plot paras in the intro, I opted for combining both. The following was designed to be a quick synopsis, while also focusing on the celebs that appear:
"In contrast to previous guest stars, James Earl Jones takes a liking to Sheldon (Jim Parsons) and the main plot is focused on the two having a night out together. Carrie Fisher appears when James Earl Jones suggests they knock on her door and run away."
I could detach the two and have a separate plot paragraph if you think it's worth it, though. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I didn't read it as such. I think that's enough—pass! Nice work. 23W 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Convention_Conundrum/GA1&oldid=621103259"