Talk:Everybody Dies (House)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Aven13. I'll review this and potentially claim Wikicup credit for performing the review. I think that if this passed, it would be your first GA nomination to pass, right? It'll be a fair bit of work to get this one up to standard but if you're willing to put the work in, hopefully we can get there. Let me know if you want more explanation or more detailed advice on any parts of the review. I'll start off with the things that stick out to me on a first read. If these get fixed than I can get more nitpicky on a second pass of the article:

• The infobox image (File:House M.D. Everybody Dies.jpg) does not meet our WP:NFCC. It's just an image of House, not specific to this episode, not illustrating a major aspect of the plot and not something which received significant critical reception or production commentary so far as I can see. The rationale reads in part: A cover image [i]s required for this article. This is a misconception. Note the {{Infobox television episode}} documentation for the |image parameter: There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode. A non-free screenshot should be used only if it meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, i.e. typically if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode that is the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary and where that commentary is in genuine need of visual support. (emphasis removed) Please remove the image (and it'll be deleted automatically in a week). An image is not mandatory. We can use a free image of Hugh Laurie somewhere in the article if you want.
• The plot is about 500 words long, but MOS:TVPLOT mandates a 400 word limit for television episode article plots, so it needs to be reduced.
• The critical reception paragraph is a bit uninspiring. Tell me: what were the major ideas raised by critics in response to the episode? Read the reviews again and make a list of anything that comes up in more than one review. Then build the critical reception summary around these ideas. A good paragraph goes something like (examples obviously made up):

“ Critics were divided over whether the finale gave closure to the series. Jenny Jennison of News Website reviewed that "House dying of coronavirus felt like a forced ending", a thought shared by Smith Smithson of Magazine Magazine, who said that "the finale was contrived and rushed". In contrast, TV Opinion's Alice Aliceworth believed that his death was "cleverly foreshadowed by House's cough in the previous episode". [etc. etc. etc.] ”

It should always be clear how each sentence follows from the last, rather than just being another disjointed quote from a review. Reviews can be broken up—there's nothing wrong with mentioning Jennison in a later paragraph on a different topic of commentary.

These are big asks, and will be most of the review if we can get them done. I'm giving you seven days while the article is  On hold and otherwise the review will regrettably be failed, because the article is quite far from GA standard at present. — Bilorv (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I think I did most of it. The intro is now 398 words, the picture is just a picture of Hugh Laurie (if you want me to change it I can) and I divided the "reception" part into sections. I'm a bit shaky on the "reception" part, so any further comments you have one that section are welcome. Thank you. Aven13 00:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! Detailed review below and Reception is looking much improved—I have only minor nitpicks about it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Full review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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:

• There's a lot of overlinking going on in the plot section—any word understood by most readers in context should not be linked. I'm not sure any of the words currently linked should be.

 Done I think that the links for House, Heroin, and Felony vandalism should stay, but I got rid of all the rest.Aven13 12:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, these were the better of the links. — Bilorv (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• had offered to take the blame and but House realizes that Oliver will — I think the consistent tense here is offered to take and but House realized.

 Done.

• Meanwhile, Wilson and Foreman have not seen House for several days, and discovering that Oliver is also missing from the hospital, they suspect House may have gone with him to take heroin. — Bit of a long sentence, might be better as: Meanwhile, Wilson and Foreman have not seen House for several days. Discovering that Oliver is also missing from the hospital, they suspect House may have gone with him to take heroin

 Done.

• and see burning building nearby — "the"/"a" missing.

 Done.

• They see House trapped inside — Repetition of "see" in quick succession; one should be rephrased.

 Done.

• Wilson states that he just destroyed his life — I think "he" should be changed to "House" for clarity.

 Done.

• Production should list announcements in chronological order — March then April.

 Done.

• This reference doesn't seem to cite anything from Anne Dudek to did not return for the series finale. Perhaps another source was meant? The cast details don't need an inline citation (the episode can be the source) but if we are to mention that Cuddy doesn't return then it needs to be sourced. I notice the Entertainment Weekly reference mentions why it's significant that she didn't. Additionally, we shouldn't use the word "notably" per WP:EDITORIALIZING.

 Done. My Bad.

• Shore's quote is quite long and rambling: cut it down to a couple of snappier parts, and I imagine there must be quotes from cast members so it would be good to hear what they thought of their characters or the finale in general.

 Done.

• Are there any more details about the production of the episode itself e.g. when it was filmed, how stunts were done, what the budget was?

 Not done Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything, but I admit that I'm not entirely sure where to look.

It really varies what you can find on each TV show—sometimes there's tons of information and sometimes not. Different people have different methods but if Google News is your tool of choice then you can mark words or phrases in quotations so that they are required to appear verbatim in the results, and you can also filter by day. This is an example sensible suggestion for this situation, and for me it turns up these two sources that look quite good: [1][2]. If you could incorporate some information from these, that would be excellent. Google News is also worth searching for particularly high-profile series that aired a few years ago, but in this case I didn't find anything substantial enough that I'll require it to be included.

 Not done. Unfortunatly, I still couldn't find anything about the budget, production, or date when it started filimg in any of the articles I found - the interviews with David Shore just summarized his thoughts on the series as a whole.

I'm not really sure what you mean. The two interviews from TVLine and Collider that I linked provide tons of detail about the finale specifically. Here's some of the questions answered by the interviews that need to be in the article (briefly, with mostly paraphrasing and limited quotes): When was the finale first conceived of by the writers? Why did writers decide that Wilson would get terminal cancer? Did writers consider killing House? Why did Chase have a minimal role in the finale? How did the fire start? How did House escape the explosion? Which part of the finale mirrors a Sherlock Holmes story? What was the thought process behind the music chosen?

Sorry, I was looking for numbers, not that stuff. I've added all of the things. Thank you for that.

• Everything in the lead should also be in the body. "Swan Song" should be mentioned in "Production" or a new section, "Broadcast", with more detail about it if reliable sources reviewed it or discussed it.

 Done. I've added a new broadcast section, that includes the information that used to be in reception.

• Also, the lead mentions the meaning of the title – This belongs under "Production", sourced, and preferably with another sentence explaining its meaning / that it's a mantra for the show / that it's regularly said by House.

 Done.

The title of the episode, Everybody Lies, is a reference to the title of the episode, Everybody Lies, a line commonly said by House. – Episode titles need quotations, not italics, the first "Lies" should be "Dies" and "the episode" should be "the pilot episode". It needs a source that it's a reference to the pilot episode to avoid being original research (I think one of the sources currently in the article mentioned it) and a source that House commonly says the phrase (this should do). — Bilorv (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. My bad.

• Good work on the Reception section changes. It's now GA standard prose.

Thank you.

• I think MOS:ORDINAL says that ordinals from "first" to "ninth" should be written as such, rather than "1st" or "9th", the same rule as for numerals one to nine. The ratings paragraph should be changed accordingly.

 Done.

• Critics generally felt like — It's three to two as currently written. Can be less controversially written as Some critics felt like.

 Done.

• TV Fanatic should be in italics (and a |work parameter in the reference). New York Magazine should be Vulture or possibly New York ("magazine" isn't part of its name). Digital Spy should be two words and can be linked. References need to be tidied up: make sure they all have a website or publisher (or both) and an accessdate. Websites should be e.g. "Digital Spy" not "Digitalspy.co.uk". "Vulture blog" should just be "Vulture".

 Done (I think.)

• The A.V. Club inline citation should be after the second Handlen sentence, not the first.

 Done.

• a reference to the pilot episode "Everybody Lies" — Just link "Everybody Lies", not "pilot episode".

 Done.

• Guest appearances in the infobox don't need inline citations, particularly when mentioned and referenced in prose.

 Done.

• A sentence in the lead summarising critical reception would be good. Doesn't have to be much e.g. "The episode was watched by 8.72 million U.S. viewers and received mixed critical reception".

 Done.

• No problems with reliability of the references, of misrepresenting the citations or of copyright violation.
• (External links aren't part of the GA criteria so you can ignore this if you like.) The "Medical review" external link, while I'm sure it's a very interesting one, is just a blog review and so not appropriate to link.

 Done.

• (Bit beyond GA criteria, so optional.) Images should have alt text so that screen readers can describe them by something other than their image name. The infobox "alt" parameter and adding |alt= to the Shore image are how this is achieved. Just |alt=photo is alright, or |alt=refer to caption. See MOS:ALT.

 Done.

— Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that that's everything; I may have missed something on the citations cleanup, but I believe I have everything. Thank you for your comments. Aven13 12:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've made a couple of small edits here and responded to some points above. — Bilorv (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I've responded to all the minor points above.

Ah sorry for missing this—I have the page watchlisted so I'm not sure how it slipped by me. Still one point above I've replied to again. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, after these three edits of mine, I think everything above has been addressed, so that's a pass for GA. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)