Talk:Fresh Off the Boat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take this one. I've looked over the quickfail criteria and I believe we can go ahead with a review, but it's looking like the article might need a bit of work. I see the show's finale is approaching but I'm not too concerned about stability issues, as this is a six-season show and the finale might only warrant a paragraph or so on the main page, if that. The most obvious issue here is the {{More citations}} tag under "Awards and nominations", but this is easily fixed—many of the appropriate citations for the awards are found on the award pages linked. I have some initial thoughts about how the "Production" and "Critical response" sections can be reworked but I'll go through now and give a full review.

(By the way, I'm doing the review as part of the 2020 WikiCup.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (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, 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):

   Not checked 2b/2c yet.

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:

Premise

• Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the citations here are accomplishing. Some of them (e.g. #6, Deadline) don't actually seem to be verifying any of the content they're cited for, and most of the content seems to be directly verifiable from the primary source of the program itself.

I fixed all of the citations to make sure they support the information stated. My original intention with the citations was to make sure the summaries didn't contain too much editorializing, but if they're not necessary, I can remove them. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough – I've no problem with the citations left in, so let's keep them. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The last paragraph is too wordy—I'd take out the "in 1995" and the 2000 paragraph and replace them with a clause at the beginning of the premise, "Set between 1995 and 2000", or "In the 1990s".

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• We can't just have a paragraph about season 2 and end it there. If the program has season arcs then it'd be good to have between a sentence and a paragraph for each season, explaining the main storylines. If storylines overlap beyond seasons, we could have between a sentence and a paragraph of the main storylines of each main character, or just the main storylines overall. This could all fit under "Premise" or could break out into a new section (e.g. "Season synopses" as in GA The Office (American TV series)).

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, these are looking really good. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cast and characters

• Eddie's in high school, right? Just some rough indication of his age goes a long way to someone who's reading about the show for the first time—say he's a teenager, or in high school, or something.

It's difficult to annotate an age range because he starts the series as an eleven-year-old, and he would be graduating high school during the end, so I'm not sure which ages are appropriate to annotate. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, particularly as we describe him as the "oldest" I think we need something to show he's not, say, in his 20s. I think anything sensible would be appropriate e.g. "aged eleven in season one" or "The show follows his journey from eleven to __ years old" or "attending ___ school and later high school" (I have no idea how the American school system works). — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I just found this recap of a season two episode on Vulture where the columnist refers to Eddie as a preteen. How does this sound–The show follows his journey from his preteen years to his senior year of high school.? KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that would definitely work! — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done! KyleJoan^talk 07:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "season two–present" can be "season two–six" or "seasons two onwards" now, right (same for "three–")? This affects the bullet points for Jenny, Honey and Marvin.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "ESL" needs a link or to be spelled out as "English as a second language" as it may not be obvious to everyone.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's not mentioned that Huang is the narrator (in the body) until we reach "Eddie Huang reduced his involvement with the series, including no longer being the narrator". I think the narrator warrants inclusion in this section.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• [[tiger parenting|tough love]] is a bit of an Easter egg link—just remove the link.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good prose overall, a well-written section!

Production

• This EW source currently referenced in the article some great information that we're not including, like Khan's comments "We sort of have the burden of an entire group's representation" or that "Women who don't apologize" are her favourite characters to write. It also links to this interview with Khan which is worth including some information from. I'd say we need to mention that Khan had recently finished working on the sitcom Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 and then some mention of the information it gives about the title change, the focus-testing of the pilot, the accents and anything else that seems like basic info. Ideally, we want to paraphrase or write some concrete details in our own words rather than quote in blocks, but some quotes are acceptable.

 Done. I added statements by Wu and Khan regarding their approaches to the construction of their respective roles. I wanted to refrain from adding too many to meet DUE. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Similarly, the Time interview with Wu is wasted as an inline citation for Huang being a mother. That doesn't need an inline citation, and instead some of the interview material belongs under the "Production" section.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Retooling" section shouldn't be in bullet points, but in prose as a couple of paragraphs.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Renewals" section looks great—no changes needed.
• The "Production" section overall needs some bulking out. I understand if details are not available for everything I'm about to mention, but as much as possible should be included: writing room processes; directors (ones who reoccur or particularly notable ones) or directing styles or filming choices (infobox says single camera); any details about filming or studios which are particular to the show; changes made in seasons 3 to 6, if any; music

 Done. The only info I could find were filming details and recurring directors. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, new stuff looks good and we can only say as much as sources do. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Episodes

• The colour choices don't look great. Unless there's a particular reason for them, I think just a rainbow style like QI has is best for accessibility. This is more a problem with List of Fresh Off the Boat episodes, though, so I'm not going to take it into account for the GA criteria.

I'm not crazy about them either, to be honest. I'll see if I can start a discussion on changing them once I'm done with this GA! KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, someone recently pointed out to me that MOS:TV says Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons, so maybe my rainbow suggestion isn't the best solution, but anyway, this isn't important to the GA review. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Distribution

• "Premiere" is a common word so [[premiere|world premiere]] can be de-linked.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mention that Freeform / Up TV are American channels.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Has the season 5 DVD been released yet?

I found info on the release, so  Done! KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• No major issues here!

Reception

• For Rotten Tomatoes, the 92% figure is actually for season 1, not the whole show. It's 94% overall. Normally we might mention each season's score individually, but it's not really a good statistic unless there's 20 or more critics aggregated.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The awards/noms for Wu don't need to be mentioned under "Critical response", but it looks like the EWwy is another one to add to "Awards and nominations".

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Critical response" section looks a bit unstructured and disorganised at the moment. It seems to me that there's four topics currently listed:
  • Asian-American representation: gather all this together in two or three consecutive paragraphs, maybe structured by visibility/lack of prior representation, then praise of the representation, then criticism of it.
  • Comparison to the memoir, currently only by Nussbaum. There's got to be more commentary about this by other reviewers—bulking this out into a paragraph would be good.
  • Comparisons to other media. If a comparison is worth noting then it's worth noting what was compared—the style of humour, or the Asian-American characters etc. For each piece of media currently listed, either expand it into a full sentence (e.g. "2000s sitcom Malcolm in the Middle was seen as similar to Fresh Off the Boat in its ...") or remove it.
  • Reception to acting. Surely there's got to be a lot more to say than that Wu was praised. What about Wu's character was praised in particular? Then, lack of critical reception to Eddie's character is something sorely missing here. And then, I'd expect some of the other characters to have had particular aspects or storylines which were particularly praised or criticised.

 Done. This was a tricky one, but I think made significant progress on the organization and the cohesion of this section. The representation bit now has three quotes of why the series is significant in advancing the concept; comparisons to other sitcoms contain specific aspects; positive responses to Wu as well as the memoir comparisons are more elaborate. Regarding reception to other actors and characters, most of the articles related to the performances and characterization that I found are reviews of the pilot praised the cast as a whole and noted how the series needed time to develop Eddie as a character, so I wasn't sure if annotating that met DUE. Reception to Wu, on the other hand, was incredibly extensive. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the critical reception is always the hardest section to work on. Sometimes I find it really boring and lengthy, but other times it can be really interesting to compare lots of different critics' opinions, and it's a skill I'm trying to improve. I don't know if you've come across Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections before, but it's well worth reading the advice and comparing one of its before/after examples. Anyway, the critical reception here now meets GA standards, and thanks for the major improvement to it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be sure to give the essay a read. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Chinese media" paragraph doesn't quite seem to fit in. If you can get accurate enough translations of some reviews, it might be interesting to have a line like "Chinese critics generally found that ..." or include some individual reviewers. If not, just the English reviews are fine. If we have any details about where/if Fresh Off the Boat is legally available in China, that's something to mention under "Broadcast".

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ratings table looks great.

Awards and nominations

• I see the referencing has been fixed as I've been writing this review, so thanks!

Lead

• The lead will need some rewriting to reflect the body with due weight, but I'd save that until after working on the other sections. Infobox looks good. There's a weird nested template at File:Fresh Off the Boat intertitle.png but the image is acceptable under our NFCC.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, lead looks good. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall

(I've made some small edits myself here, here and here.)

I've done some referencing spotchecks and things are looking good, but I'll need to do more once some more expansion of the content has been done.

I know this is a long review, but there's a fair few places where I think the article falls short of the GA criterion of broad coverage. I do think it's all fixable, but I understand it's a lot of work so I'll put the article  On hold for two weeks. If the points above are addressed sooner then I can pass it quicker, but after two weeks I'll look at the progress that has been made and consider whether enough has been done to satisfy the GA criteria. If you've got disagreements with anything I've suggested then respond inline and I'll be happy to reconsider or talk further. Thanks for all the work done so far on the article! — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this on, Bilorv. I've read all of your suggestions, and I plan to get started on revisions to incorporate them today. I'll be sure to notify you once everything is in order. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: Thanks for the reply! I know it's only been a couple of days, but just thought I'd ping you in case this has slipped your mind. — Bilorv (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, Bilorv! I think the article is about ready for you to have another look at it. Thank you again! KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks KyleJoan. The episode is in so much better shape – I know it must have been a lot of work. We're very nearly there but there's a couple of points I have on a last pass. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Round two

The article is now broad in coverage and well-written. I've checked sources for reliability, spotchecked a few inline citations and re-read the article and here are my only remaining comments (along with the one above beginning Hmmm, particularly as we describe him as the "oldest" I think we need something ...):

• Series synopsis says: [...] Eddie as he begins to "contemplate his future as the end of high school approaches for him." Quotes with no source mentioned in prose aren't good, but I think it'd be better to just rewrite this in our own words (e.g. [...] Eddie as he approaches the end of high school and needs to consider his future) rather than attributing the quote.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Source #77 (noreruns.net) doesn't look reliable. Worldcat might be the best source for the "Home media" section, though I was surprised to see WP:RSP say that Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.).

I replaced the source with an article from PopMatters. I was surprised to see . . . I was surprised to see that as well! At first, I thought the contrary because it is listed in red, but then upon a further read, apparently it's not discouraged to cite it for past releases, yeah? KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Source #134 (Red Carpet Report) only mentions the Young Entertainer Award wins and not the nominations, as far as I can see.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reference formatting is inconsistent (works not always mentioned, and sometimes linked and sometimes not), but this isn't a GA criteria problem.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, everything has now been fixed! Thanks again for all the work you've done, and I hope you feel like the article has improved over the review. :) Pass for GA. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv. All of your suggestions helped make the article so much more comprehensive as well as cohesive. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 11:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)