Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 17:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will give the reviews soon. Thanks! — Yash! ^[talk] 17:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phase one

Lead

The first sentence of the second paragraph should be split into two.
Replace the "while" in the second sentence since it is used in the first one
Unlink the S.H.I.E.L.D since it has been linked before in the first paragraph
- Done all three. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

First of all be consistent. Is it Hydra or H.Y.D.R.A.? It is mentioned in both ways. Fix that please
Since it is the first time you are mentioning the names, use the full names instead of May, Ward, Fitz, Simmons.
team is able to learn - team finds
- Done all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
an "0-8-4" or a "0-8-4"
- an "0-8-4" read as OH eight four. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
avoid using "actually". Best to remove it.
- Left one instance in ep 18. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The squabbling team members band together, utilizing each of their talents, and take out Reyes's men - The squabbling team members band together, and take out Reyes's men
- Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use 'while' only when two things are happening separately at the very same time. I don't remember if it is the case here. Replace it if it is not so
- I think we are okay. If one instance stood out to you, please point it out for me to examine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have something about Ian Quinn when he is mentioned for the first time - Ian Quinn, a XXXXXX
Coulson soon discovers that Hall perpetrated his own escape in order to find the gravitonium and the generator and destroy both. - "and" is used awkwardly
- Done both above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coulson is able to take Amador... - Don't use 'while'twice inthe same sentence. It is also too long. I suggest you split it.
- Done Split the sentence. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better to start 'who injects him with...' in a new sentence
'undercover' - 'uncover' or 'discover' whatever you like
them both - them
anomalies, and although the - anomalies. Although the
Remove 'actually'
How does Ward save her while Simmons leaped. Explain that please
to find out more - to find more
with Simmons tranquilizes Agent Jasper Sitwell when he catches her hacking into Level 8... - shouldn't it be tranquilizing?
team to rescue Ward and Fitz - team to rescue them
While - Later
full truth - entire truth
possesses increased strength - his strength increases
Randolph is himself an - remove 'himself'
- Done all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why is targets in ""?
- I believe it was as a way to state that he uses his powers only to protect her? My memory isn't the best for the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
remove 'in order' from 'in order to protect'
get time - spend time
recommends to Raina - recommends Raina
Peterson, for Ace - no need to mention 'for Ace' again
and with an - with an
- Done all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fitz and Simmons, after looking over Coulson's files, realize that Coulson was revived at a place known as the "Guest House", where Coulson, Ward, Garrett, and Fitz find many explosives after taking out the only guards. - its fine. If possible, just mention that they went there. Right now we talk about the files and immediately about explosives at the place
- I reworded some of the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
create an army, - form an army
and that, to neutralize her power to control the minds of men - and to neutralize her power of controlling the minds of men
to hunt for the Clairvoyant. - in hunt of the Clairvoyant.
who must speak - who communicates
and when Nash boasts about being the Clairvoyant and says that Centipede will kill Skye, Ward kills him. - remove 'and'. Start it in a new sentence
Clairvoyant is really a high-ranking - remove 'really'
locked so that only - locked and only
then takes - takes
a superhuman possessing the Darkforce and former Fridge inmate - a superhuman and former Fridge inmate possessing the Darkforce
group overload him - group overloads him
However upon - can a ',' be used?
and who needs - remove 'and'
The team travels to Havana, Cuba, where they find the H.Y.D.R.A. base, recently abandoned, and Fitz and Simmons find the captured Bus. - Sounds little odd. Something other than 'and' perhaps
ejects the infirmary into the ocean - ejects it into the ocean
- Done all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This concludes Phase one ;) — Yash! ^[talk] 05:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phase two

Production

Shouldn't “Ragtag,” be 'Ragtag,' since it is said inside ""
- The "" are used because it is an episode title. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an article on B.J. Britt?
- We did, but it was recently deleted (I didn't follow the discussion so I'm not sure why exactly). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smulders did end up reprising - Smulders reprised
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is 'is' in italics?
- That is how the source depicted Whedon's emphasis, I believe. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
directors' responsibility is "to visually interpret the writer’s intent as written in the individual episode teleplays. - that applies to TV shows in general. Even if said particularly for the show, it goes for every show directed. It goes off topic so best to remove that part.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things as quotes. Last paragraph of filming can be written without them using the material.
- Have cut the quotes down. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a modified C17 transport plane that is outfitted with S.H.I.E.L.D. technology. It serves as the mobile headquarters of Agent Coulson’s S.H.I.E.L.D. team - Facts like that for sure should not be in quotes. Please write that in your own language
- I removed it since we already explain this in our own words above. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FuseFX also worked on Lola, Coulson’s "vintage 1962 Corvette. It’s a classic car - FuseFX also worked on Lola, Coulson’s "vintage 1962 Corvette" which was described as "a classic car...
Lola is described as a Chevy Corvette then a 1962 Corvette. Better to have it one way. I would prefer 1962
In 'Episodes' it is 'after the events of Iron Man 3 and here Avengers. Clarify that please and stick to one.
there is no need to mention '2013 film' and '2014 film. Remove them
Loeb said, "..." regarding... - Regarding..., Loeb said "..."
release of Winter Soldier - 'the'
- Done all above. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Along with the premiere in the United States on ABC, the season also began airing in Canada on CTV - remove 'also'
remove 'of the season' in the first line of 'Art of level seven'
The complete first season - The season
include - included
- Done all above. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for Phase two! — Yash! ^[talk] 03:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phase three: Finite Part 1

Reception

biggest drama launch of the year - use of words such as 'biggest' is discouraged. Either use it with "" if that is how it is present in the source or use something else. I would not prefer the former
'The Seven Network'. If you mention that about Australia, mention about other countries as well or don't mention the networks at all. Whichever you like
'first episode'. In England it is 'episode' so go with 'episode' or 'it'. No need to mention 'first'
By the time the full season was picked up it ranked... - in which country?
the entire pilot - the pilot
there is no need of mentioning 'especially on a network with "Scandal moms and Dancing with the Stars grandparents",'. Please remove it
while Entertainment Weekly 's initial reactions were that... - its too long. Start with the EWs comments in a new sentence.
link IGN
as a whole 7.5 - a 7.5
- Done all above. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a great job. My only concern is the lack of notable reviews in the "critical reception". Like you have forbes and lat in the "analysis", can we have names like that in "cr"? You don't need to write a whole paragraph or something big. All I want to see is addition of one line or two from notable sources and removal of a line or two, both things in the current existing big paragraphs with reviews from only one less notable site. I am talking about last three paragraphs. Though IGN and the artist are notable, an entire paragraph about what one person is saying, is not right. Trim it and add at least one other review in each of those three paragraphs
- @Favre1fan93: do you have any thoughts on how to proceed with this one, especially since we have been trying to use season reviews for this section? - adamstom97 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yash!: As Adam stated, we (for the most part) were using the reception section to highlight responses to the season as the whole. So if the LA Times or Forbes did not give those type of reviews, they are not included. We can look to see if maybe the AV Club has one, maybe Zap2It or Variety, but I think that was it. That was partially the reason for the "Analysis" separation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough :) — Yash! ^[talk] 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Favorite New TV Drama - Is there something wrong with my phone or is the font of it actually bigger than the other awards?
- I don't see any issue, could just be how your phone is presenting it. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a pattern with all pages. I guess I need a new phone! — Yash! ^[talk] 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the references and imagining in part two and it will over. Thanks — Yash! ^[talk] 06:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phase three: Finite Part 2

Remove the reference from the lead and include that in the prose please
- Declining that, as there is no reasonable place in prose to place it, as it has nothing to do with any aspect of the first season. It is acceptable per WP:LEADCITE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images need WP:ALT
- Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in the 'Art of Level Seven', highlighting -> highlights
- Do you mean in the caption? I don't feel that has to change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TVLine is italicised in ref 30, not in 33. Be consistent. It shouldn't be in italics
Unlink TVLine from ref 33.
Deadline.com is linked every time in the references. Only keep it linked when it is first introduced.
'crave online' should not be italicised in ref 71
ref 72 needs 'work'
ref 73 needs as well
link HitFix once in the references
ref 78 needs 'work'
so does ref 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84.
IGN shouldn't be italicised in ref 85
MTV splash page should not be italicised if I am not wrong, ref 87
Entertainment Weekly should be only linked once
same goes for Marvel.com
Digital spy shouldn't be italicised
ref 150 needs 'work'
What is the purpose of 'General references'?
- Okay, so I just notice that the ref section was really in bad shape. I cleaned it up to make sure everything had a publisher and/or work fields. I will continue to check this, because I may have missed some, even if this review passes. Additionally, all should include links in those fields, not the first occurrence. General references are for the episode info (minus plot). Even though they eps them selves are their own source, it is just there for a "catch all" if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It shouldn't be link every time. For e.g., if you have linked IGN once in a source, it should not appear again in any other. It will be clear overlinking. — Yash! ^[talk] 05:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an exception to overlinking, and is not in violation of it. I've never had any issue with this from other GA reviews. They've actually encouraged the linking of publishers when there weren't any. Because the ref list is not static, the first instance that is chosen, may not always be the first one in the list if the refs are moved around in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - From 7 to 27, it has been linked 20 times. And THR, from 140 to 144. I am not asking to unlink all. I believe that is too much. — Yash! ^[talk] 05:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If you look at the list, yes it looks like a "mass of blue", but if a reader hovers over the ref link, so they never get to the list, each should be link for that reason alone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I still think it shouldn't be linked that much. However, it isn't a big concern. — Yash! ^[talk] 06:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should just about do it. — Yash! ^[talk] 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks good

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Let's go try some shawarma! — Yash! ^[talk] 06:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yash! Appreciated the time you took to review it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]