Talk:Berlin (NCIS)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 05:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. Please note that I'm using this review as part of WP:GARC, so it may take a little longer to review. (See here.) As is my practice, I fill out a review template first, and then do a prose and source review afterwards. Should be fun; I'm a huge NCIS fan, so I look forward to this review. Please feel free to ask questions and challenge me as you see fit. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

My initial impression with this article is that it's very strong, but my opinion often changes as I get further into the review.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
This article sometimes tends into fannishness, which I'll discuss below in the prose section.

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. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
I've done a very cursory source check, and I've already found problems with ref 2. See below for more details, and for a more thorough source review.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I'm AGF that you've exhausted all sources about the topic.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Very stable; editing done by one editor, with no vandalism since its creation in July.
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:
Other than the infobox image, you have only one image in this article, of Sirtis. Are there any other free images available, perhaps of the other actors (i.e., Rocky Caroll, Michael Nouri, Oded Fehr)?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
See below for a more thorough prose and source review, which I'll try to complete by the end of the weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review. I've been losing Internet access for long periods of time this past week, so I apologize in advance if I'm a little slow in responding to anything. --1ST7 (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Lead

I know that the lead summarizes the article, but I think that you should put in a little explanation about the characters. I know who Tony, Ziva, and Vance are, and I'm familiar with the Bodnar storyline, but non-viewers wouldn't be. And the Rockets' Dead Glare, a GA about a Homicide: Life on the Street episode, does a good job with this. In order for you to do this, though, you probably need to paraphrase the Glasberg quote. How about: "The episode advances a storyline focusing on the murder of significant secondary characters in the series and the romance between main characters Tony and Ziva."

Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Link "Naval Criminal Investigative Service".

Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Glasberg, Newsome and Nouri "were of course upset by the direction that [he] chose"... Who is [he]? I looked at the source, and Glasberg is speaking about himself and the writers, but I think that the wording is unclear. This demonstrates an over-dependence on quotes in this article. You could probably paraphrase this sentence, which would clarify it, and would allow you to remove the "according to..." phrase, which is used too often throughout the article. "How about: Glasberg reported that Newsome and Nouri were understandably unhappy about their characters' deaths, but agreed to "give it everything they could"."

Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about Newsome and Nouri's reactions to the storyline, but not Carroll and de Pablo's. Perhaps you should add that.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Meanwhile, McGee agrees to Gibbs and Vance's request to hack into Mossad database... The wording here makes it sounds as though McGee was resistant to the hacking. Now, I saw this episode, so I don't remember if he was, but as a regular viewer, I doubt it; McGee always follows his supervisors' (especially Gibbs) orders, and would understand the reasons for it. If he was reluctant, you should say that; if not how about: "Gibbs and Vance orders McGee to hack into Mossad database..." And shouldn't it be "the Mossad database"?

Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good place to add images, perhaps of Weatherly and de Pablo.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong section; nice job. On a personal note, by husband and I just watched Ziva's final episode. (We're a little behind.) Sob! ;)

Writing

I wonder if you should state who the director was, since this section is about the writing. I suggest that you remove it, since you bring up his name later, in the "Filming" section.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the two-part episode arc in January surrounding the killings and the immediate aftermath, show runner Gary Glasberg decided to pull away from the storyline for a few months to focus on the typical case of the week installments. Please explain or link "show runner". I think you should add that the two-part episodes were aired in January. I also think that you need to explain what you mean by "the typical case of the week installments". I suspect that you meant that they focused on what the show usually focuses on, which is the police procedural case stuff. Please re-word; it will probably make things clearer.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writers began to resurrect the plot in the episode prior to "Berlin" by revealing that Ziva had been searching for Bodnar on her own, intending to kill him as revenge... I'd changing the wording of the first phrase a bit because it's clearer to say that the writers returned to the plot. You should also name the title of the episode before "Berlin", again for clarity's sake. I also think that you should state that Ziva was looking for Bodnar despite being told not to.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

Their history, she believed, is "kind of mind-blowing" and gives explanation to subplots introduced earlier in the episode. Did Sirtis say that the characters' history explained the subplots? If not, you need to separate the concepts and reference who said the second part.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ben Morrison reprise the role? If not, separate the sentence.

Yes, he reprised the role. --1ST7 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

I think that there are too many quotes in this section, especially the extended one by de Pablo. I like the part beginning with her calling Tony "a man Teddy bear", so you should keep that part, but I think you should paraphrase most of the other quotes.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"Berlin" was seen by 17.33 million live viewers following its broadcast on April 23, 2013... It's incorrect to state that the episode was seen by this many viewers following its broadcast. You could just say: ""Berlin" was seen by 17.33 million live viewers at its April 23, 2013 broadcast..."

Done --1ST7 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessary to explain the rating system. Is this something that's done in other episode articles? I'd just remove the sentence (2nd in section), but I'll leave the final choice to you.

Pretty much all of the other NCIS episode articles explain the ratings system. I personally think it's helpful to have that explanation. --1ST7 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In total viewers, "Berlin" easily won NCIS and CBS the night. I'm not sure that people unfamiliar with television would understand this sentence. I suggest that you state that "Berlin" was the highest-rated show the night it aired.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the last episode "Chasing Ghosts", "Berlin" was up in viewers and adults 18–49. Awkward wording. How about: "Berlin had higher ratings and attracted more adults aged 18-49 than the previous episode, "Chasing Ghosts".

Done --1ST7 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Reception" subsection depends too much on quotes. It feels like you simply found all the reviews you could, and then dumped them here. I suggest that you paraphrase many of the quotes. I can assist if you'd like.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this has taken a little longer than I thought. It's been a little busy IRL. Now, I'll look at the sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I think that you need to look at how you utilize your sources. For example, when I looked at ref2, I found that it doesn't fully support the statement before ref2b. There isn't anything in TV Guide source about the final scenes, but it is in ref 11. Please insert ref 11 at the end of the sentence. Also, there's some nice stuff in the source about Sirtis' experiences with Mark Harmon. I don't think you need to state that he brought her breakfast and how she compared it to Patrick Stewart's treatment of her, but it may be nice to say that she was impressed with Harmon. This article is short enough that you could beef it up with stuff like that.

Done I did add a brief reference to him bringing her breakfast to help the statement flow better; I hope you don't mind. --1ST7 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's better, but the point of Sirtis' statement was that she was commenting on how welcomed she felt on set, especially by Harmon, which is something she didn't experience while working with Stewart. I added some language that reflected it; I hope you don't mind what I've done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5: You repeat the ref twice in the 1st 2 sentences in the 2nd paragraph in the "Background" section; you only need it once. I suggest that you put it at the end of the 2nd sentence.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 10: This ref doesn't really support the first statement it's supposed to support, the 1st sentence in the "Writing" section. The source says that Bodnar was disgraced and that he was responsible for Jackie and Eli's deaths, but it says nothing about the episode in which he was last seen and that he fled NCIS and Mossad. Ref 10 also doesn't mention the name of the previous episode, or that it was the first episode since "Shiva" in which Fehr appeared. That's easy enough to find a source that supports that statement, or at least it can be re-worded. For the statement about the speed of the car in the "Filming" section, you can also beef things up by stating that the bloggers thought that the car that hit Tiva looked like it was going 80 mph and not 50.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 is broken, and it brings me something other than the TV Guide. Please fix.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13: I realize that this is an article about an TV episode, so its sources will tend to be industry sites like TV Guide and even some blogs. This source is a blog like ref 10, but ref 10 is the blog of the show's producer and writer, and ref 13 is more of a fan blog, even though it's from Entertainment Weekly, and the writer states that she gets its information from Twitter. Personally, I wouldn't have used it, since the information you use from it isn't all that important and it's something you can get from other sources. I suggest that you either remove it, or that you find other sources that support it.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19: It's my personal opinion that if you can support the same statement with two sources, it's best to use the best one. I say that because ref 19 basically rehashes ref 18. I suggest that you remove ref 19, since it's unnecessary, and that you keep ref 18 because it's a better source.

Done --1ST7 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not checking the refs from the "Critical review" section, since I'm sure they work and because I anticipate that you'll do some rewording and paraphrasing as I suggest above.

Thanks for the opportunity to revisit an enjoyable NCIS episode, and to learn more about the show. I know that I'm being picky, but I like to be thorough and I want to make sure my GA Recruitee gets as much as possible out of it. I hope the article is improved as a result. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very thorough review. I don't mind if it's picky, because that helps to get the article as improved as possible. I'll do the best I can to cover everything you mentioned. Again, thanks! --1ST7 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think everything has been covered. --1ST7 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you could do some further paraphrasing in the "Critical reviews" section. Would you mind if I did it, to demonstrate to both you and my GA recruitee what I mean? I think that's the last thing that needs to be done before the article is passed. My apologies that things have been so slow; I went out of town this weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind at all. That would actually be very helpful. --1ST7 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. I've gone ahead and done so, and hope that you like what I've done. Everything looks good; will go pass the article now. Congrats! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the rephrasing, and thank you very much for the review! --1ST7 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]