Jump to content

Talk:Grey's Anatomy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey's Anatomy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 10:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be conducting a full review shortly, but there are at a minimum no reasons to "quickfail" (fairly obviously, the article is in good shape). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues

  • The "Awards" section needs references and grammar improvement - for example an ampersand ("&") is used in the main body.
 Doing... TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have, and am added some citation needed tags.
 Done Addressed citation needed tags. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I've undone one of your references which did not appear to support the sentence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done Removed statement as it's not clarified by a source. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Standardise how episodes are referred to - eg. "Name" rather than Name or just Name.
Not sure I don't quite know what you mean..can you clarify? TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Some are marked like "The Becoming" (article's quote marks, not mine), others Piece of My Heart and one just 'Freedom' (my quote marks). It is no requirement that any one style is used - although might I say I think the first is best - but it's confusing to the reader to keep changing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done Okay thanks I got it now. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Refs #37, #57, #16, #73, #75, need improvement. #58 needs replacing - besides, it's now been aired, no?
 Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Preferably standardise date references between, say, 2011-05-15, 15 May 2011, etc.
 Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Give the full names of the key cast members where you have only the surname at the beginning of the cast and characters section (but not elsewhere unless there is a good reason - I think this is a hypercorrection from the previous GAN)
 Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "DVRed" is not (yet) a verb and should be avoided.
 Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Fall" (or indeed any season name) should be avoided because it is confusing for the Southern Hemisphere.
 Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Season 7" section needs rewriting now it has aired - for example tenses but also that the number of episodes can be stated as fact.
 Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On hold for now, further comments will be added once these have been addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the review! I'll address the issues ASAP. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, did some copyediting of my own, and am now happy with the article. Why not assess one yourself? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer review 1

Grey's Anatomy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently listed as a good article and even though it is far from featured article, I want to make that happen. In order to do this, I need to know what this article needs to make it to FA status. I think the 'series overview' section needs work but I would like specific details on what this article needs.

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Lemonade51

Thank you for your effort on this. Alas, I'm not the biggest fan of Grey's Anatomy—in fact I haven't even watched it properly since the Season three finale but this is a generally well written piece. The page ratings support that, it must be viewed by thousands every month (one would guess) so logically this has the potential to be a FA. Here are some suggestions and ideas:

  • For inspiration, take a look at other WP:FAC's related to your topic. There aren't much TV show articles with a 'FA' status; House (TV series) featured on the Wikipedia home page last May so that would be a start. Or even check out The Simpsons, in spite of it being an animated sitcom. Firefly is another one.
  • I am not entirely convinced about WP:LEAD. Ask yourself this: when reading it, does it provide a summary of the show?
  • "A spin-off show, titled Private Practice, revolving around character Addison Montgomery...", what is that doing in the second paragraph of the lead? It's like someone reading about Friends and halfway down a few sentences start learning about Joey when they don't even know about the original Friends characters or whether the show was a success (OK, maybe they could have guessed that because of the spin-off but you do understand where I'm trying to get at?). Surely any mention of a spinoff programme should be in the final paragraph, or third in this case where it discusses the success of the show.
  • Is there any summary about the show's main characters and general themes in the lead? You don't have to go into too much detail, brief would be fine.
  • "Regarding the eighth season, Dempsey stated that...", would that quote be justifiable in the lead? Because this is an ever changing subject (will Dempsey leave/stay on?), maybe it would be best to leave that somewhere else for now.
  • Good to see that there aren't any Dablinks. However, there are two dead links which unfortunately passed away on the 3 January. Consider replacing them.
  • "The title Grey's Anatomy was devised as a play on...", It would be nice if you have a ref to back this up. Maybe you could mention this in the lead and blend it with the character Meredith Grey. That way you have answered one of my earlier points.
  • Casting? How did Patrick Dempsey get his role for instance?
  • Ideally there should be more background information under 'Production'. How was the programme concepted? Origin? Did the producers budge other networks before ABC? Who did the creator originally intend the target audience to be set at? There should be articles available, an interview even of Shonda Rhimes before the show launched in 2005. Researching this might be the difficult part.
  • "Mark Kimson of The Guardian has credited Grey's Anatomy with popularizing the "songtage", or musical montage segments.", consider a Cultural impact section perhaps? That paragraph alone would be good as a standalone, of course you may want to beef up the production bit before doing so.
  • Anything on Distribution? Where is the programme shown in the United Kingdom, Australia for instance? How many countries does the programme reach out to?
  • For TV seasons, use the en dash ( – )
  • Putting headers of all seasons in the series overview seems the lazy way out. One way could be explaining what the ordinary viewer can expect in any episode – like House does. Alternatively you could do something like Friends by stating the goings-on in each season. However you may need to develop story arcs and themes better.

I will post any more suggestions if I have any in the coming days. – Lemonade51 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Thumbnail images, upright images, and forced image widths

This revert was unwise, because of how poor the forced image sizes look, particularly on smaller displays. I know many people now have giant screen monitors with 2560x1600 or greater resolutions. But plenty of others are still using 800x600. The way to make all that work is to respect the |thumb parameter, so that when a user picks a particular default size that fits their display, they get a decent looking article. By the same token, upright images must use the |upright parameter, or they'll look inexplicably huge. File:Kate Walsh HBO party 08.jpg is the worst example of that on this page, though there are others. The title screen, on the other hand is miniscule; it needs a ratio to the thumb size, with the |upright=1.3 parameter to expand it to about 130% (or so) of the user's default thumbnail width.

It's a really good idea to preview pages at a range of resolutions, with an appropriate change in your thumbnail size under Appearance in My Preferences, so as to understand how dynamic sizes serve different readers so much better than forcing a 200px or 300px wide upright image down their throat. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I happen to have a small resolution computer and it looks fine. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
What's your default thumbnail size? And regardless of what your size is set to, having upright images three times as large as horizontal images does not look fine. It why the upright parameter exists. And then again, everyone who does have a ginmrmous monitor is really annoyed with your dinky little 200px image widths. Those are the people who asked for 300px-wide thumbnails in their user preferences, and you should give them what they asked for, not what looks fine on your screen. People with small screens asked for only 120px thumbnails and you're giving them 200. It's best to assume the reader is not an ignoramus, and knows what looks best for them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My default size is 220px. I can now understand your point, feel free to change it back. Thank you for helping out the article, TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 of the lead: aaaaaargh

P2 of the lead is a completely inpenetrable blizzard of blue-links and contextless information. IMO it's a major turn-off for readers not well familiar with GA, and probably for those that are. It must be possible to convery some information about the subject matter and style of the series without resorting to some sort of edited highlights or TL:DR version of the entire season. I really very strongly recommend P2 should deal in much more general terms, such as are found in the Series Synposis - Overview section in the body of the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a peer review comment, please leave it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Grey's Anatomy/archive2. That being said, yes, I did not write that section of the lead, but it was modeled off of House's second lead paragraph. Due to their being so many characters in the series, I do not really know what to do. A user, Lemonade51, is currently reading through the article, and will provide comments. Perhaps, he'll have an idea. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Update: Lead has since been fixed. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No it hasn't. P2 of the lead is mostly a blizzard of names of characters which do nothing to summarise the TV series. P1 of the Overview section is much more the sort of thing I'd expect to find in the lead, with P2 of the lead tucked somewhere in the body of the article. Swap them around, even if only in preview mode. Does that not read better to you for a person hitherto uninformed about Grey's Anatomy ... which is presumably the person we should assume is reading it. Encyclopedias should assume no a priori knowledge. So Yes. A list of character names imparts pretty much zero by way of summary and and he cannot come there because he was there
cannot form part of a well written lead. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Calm down, the article and lead are in the process of a copyedit and restructuring. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer review 2

Grey's Anatomy

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after receiving the previous peer review feedback for this page, I followed all advice given, and the article is completely re-written, in an effort to comply with FAC. The only issue I am fully aware of is distribution's lack of broad coverage. This is only because I have yet to find info on other countries the program reaches. I plan on nominating for FA, but would like to receive final feedback before doing so. I would appreciate an experienced user, who's dealt with FAC before, to explain any flaws of the article, and anything that would stop you from saying yes at FAC.

Thanks tremendously, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a show I have heard of and seen commercials for, but never watched. Thanks for your work on the article, which seems pretty comprehensive (i.e. pretty much all the information needed seems to be here). However, I think it needs a fair amount of work before it would pass easily at WP:FAC, especially with the lead and prose. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which are mostly comments I would make if this were at FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There is one FA on a medical drama, House M.D., which seems like it would be a useful model. I also note that there are a fair number of FAs on television series at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - it seems as if these might give some insight into how to handle certain aspects of the article (like where to put information on the spin off)
  • The lead seems to me like it does not follow WP:LEAD well. One problem is that the lead should be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there does not seem to be anything in the current lead about the musical episode, or the merchandise, or top ten lists, or even casting. Note it does not have to be more than a brief mention, but as a full summary these things should be mentioned (if it is important enough for its own (sub)section, it should be in the lead.
  • I also think the lead needs to make it clearer what the current or most recent season is (the eighth season ended in May) to help provide context to the reader. See WP:PCR
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - the ninth season renewal seems to only be in the lead though
    •  Done It is under U.S. television ratings, on the chart.
  • The level of detail in the second paragraph of lead seems excessive to me - as noted I have never seen this show and only know that there is a character nicknamed "McDreamy" on it. I do not think the medical specialties of the various doctors need to be given in the lead in most cases - there is too much "medical specialty A" of "character whose name I never heard of B" (played by "actor or actress I usually do not know C") and it gets confusing. Again look at the House article - it does not mention in the lead that Taub is a plastic surgeon
  • The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of prose. This is decent, but could use some polish. A few examples follow, but this needs a copyedit
    • Avoid needless repetition - first sentence says it was highly rated (top ten) in its first four seasons, then the next sentence repeats this but omits season four for some reason: Having attained commercial success and critical acclaim, Grey's Anatomy was among the top-ten rated shows in the United States from its first through fourth seasons. The first, second and third seasons received high ratings, with an average viewership of around 19 million, but the past few seasons have seen a decrease. Also the last phrase about the past few seasons is one of those things that can get outdated quickly - better to be specific and say which seasons had a ratings drop.
    • Just ungrammatical and needlessly complex: The series, especially during the second and third season, has received numerous awards, of which are the Golden Globe Award for Best Drama Series in 2006 and two Primetime Emmy nominations for Outstanding Drama Series in 2006 and 2007. AND nominations are not the same as actually receiving awards - plus why single out these two noms, when it has many other noms and won other awards for acting, producing, makeup etc.?
    • Unclear - I thought this meant the series was currently in its fifth season when I first read it Having been on the air for five years, Grey's Anatomy was named the fourth-highest revenue earning show in 2010. How about something like In 2010 after its fifth season, Grey's Anatomy was named the fourth-highest television money-maker, in terms of advertising revenue per half hour.
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • The images are nice and often are the first thing that readers look at - I think that they need to be a bit more informative. I think it is OK to use full names and wikilinks in captions (it is not overlinking or a violation of the MOS). So Rhimes envisioned a racially diverse drama. could be something like Series creator Shonda Rhimes envisioned a racially diverse drama.
  • That said the MOS says to use a person's full name on first mention, then just use their last name thereafter (assuming there is no one else with the same last name, and obviously not changing direct quotations)(Plus captions are OK to use full name), but SHonda Rhimes is repeated in full in the Production team section
  • For FAC, lots of little things like this need to be take care of - why is "Dyslexia" capitalized in The catalyst of the series, Patrick Dempsey (Derek Shepherd), was fearful of not receiving the part, due to his Dyslexia.?
  • And why is Dempsey "the catalyst" for the series? This is mentioned in the lead and in the sentence quoted, but never explained or expanded
  • The structure of the first sections after the lead seems odd to me - first the reader learns about the "Conception" of the series, then about the spin off, then the all musical episode, and then sections on the production team and casting follow. I would look at a FA on a tv series with a spinoff to see how it is handled, but it seems to me that the spinoff and musical episode sections should come much later in the article.
  • Or there is stuff in the article that just does not agree with the rest of the article - for example Throughout its first six years, Grey's Anatomy was included in various critics' top ten lists... is followed by four years of such lists (not six)
    •  Not done This was written this way, because it is not four straight years. The years were 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010. That is a span of six years. So, I thought the best wording would be "throughout its first six years". TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      •  Done
  • Or The series' primary writer is Rhimes; she has written 170 episodes. Under Rhimes, on the writing staff, is Vernoff with 18 episodes, Stacy McKee with 17, Tony Phelan with 14, Joan Rater with 14, and Debora Cahn with 13. adds up to over 240 episodes, but the infobox says there are only 172 so far - this needs to clarify that some are co-written, and also needs to add a year or date (as of when is this true?)
  • Avoid vague time terms like currently - better to use "As of YEAR" or perhaps "after the nth season" The series currently holds a score of 66 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on five reviews for the past season.[164]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example "medical personnel" is linked to Medic, which a) does not seem like the correct link, and b) does not really do anything to increase the reader's comprehension
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied these comments here from my talk page:

On the peer review, you mentioned that the article needs a copy edit. However, it has already been copy edited by a member of the GOCE, just last week. Are you saying that it needs another one? TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a few more questions—if you don't mind:

  • Again, should this article still be c/e even though it was done last week by the GOCE?
    • I do not mind and yes, I think it does.
  • Is it okay to mention season nine's renewal, just in the lead? I do not know an appropriate section to add it to, and it will only be there until the ninth season commences airing.
    • My strong preference is to include it in the body of the article. Perhaps have a history section that includes the spinoff, the musical episode, and the renewal? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You said: "Throughout its first six years, Grey's Anatomy was included in various critics' top ten lists... is followed by four years of such lists (not six)". However, the years that the show was included in a list were 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. That is four years, but it is spanned across six years. Therefore, I thought the best wording would be "throughout its first six years", no?

A few more questions:

  • Do you think a "Related media" section would be appropriate to include the spinoff and musical episode?
  • Do you think I should request the c/e from the GOCE, or perhaps do you know someone that is great at copyediting?

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The musical epsiode is still an episode of Grey's Anatomy, so I would not call it "related media". I would look at some model articles: Meerkat Manor is an FA on a TV series with a prequel movie. The Quatermass Experiment is a British sf tv show that spawned three sequel series (and is an FA). The Simpsons is a FA and discusses the movie based on the series. Note that none of these talk about sequels in the conception section.
  • I would look for someone who has had at least one FA where they were the/a major contributor for a copyeditor. There are also some volunteer copyeditors at WP:PR/V.
  • The article feels long - I would make sure to avoid needless repetition and too much detail. It might be worth checking to see if the Casting section (which is pretty long) duplicates the later plot and characters material.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A-class review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey's Anatomy/A-class nomination. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grey's Anatomy

This article has been Promoted
Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk)

I am nominating Grey's Anatomy for A-class status, because I believe it meets the A-class criteria. Please review the article, and the criteria, and either Support or Oppose the article for A class status. If you oppose, please give reasons, and I will try to address the issues. Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA Suggestions

I gave article a copy-edit. TBrandley 03:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a copyeditor whose had numerous FAs, so could you just give suggestions? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a very minor one. TBrandley 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions:

TBrandley 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about edit for page. Must of accidentally use the rollback feature. TBrandley 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You talk about the show having a diverse cast, yet there are no big pictures of the black actors/actresses of the show? Maybe add one. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I picked pictures that best went along with the section. The show's diversity is not just with black people, it's with all cultures. There are in fact only three (now 2) black series regulars. There is a picture of Latino Sara Ramirez. I was going to add a picture of Chandra Wilson to casting, but there is none available. A picture of James Pickens, Jr. wouldn't really belong anywhere. I would like to add one of Sandra Oh, but cannot find an appropriate place. If I add too many pictures, the articles looks jumbled. The picture in main characters shows all of them, which is why it was placed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing notes

TRLIJC19 has asked me to copy–edit this article further, and I'm going to leave notes here as we progress. This is a long article, and copy editing will take a while. It is my usual practice to edit the body of the article first, editing the lead only once the content of the article is stable. I also usually start off with improvement of grammar and word choice, which is a good way to ensure I'm on the same page as the primary editor(s) before proposing or making major structural changes. So...let's see how this goes. Feedback very welcome. Risker (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Question re lead

Is the hospital initially named Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital? The article suggests that the hospital's name was changed several years into the series. Recommend that the original name of the hospital be used here. Risker (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It was originally named Seattle Grace Hospital. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Risker, I think "midseason" is hyphenated as "mid-season"; due to the article mid-season replacement. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I admit that was my first instinct; I was spelling it as it was in the original reference, but consistency in usage is preferable. Risker (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Should I change it or will you? I don't know if you're currently editing and don't want to cause an edit conflict. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Already done. :-) Risker (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Great! I'm logging off for the night, so I will not be able to respond to further queries here until the morning. Thanks for starting! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Length of the article & proposed re-organization

I've looked at several other FAs and GAs of television series, and this one is quite a bit longer than others. (I figured that it was long when it was taking so long to load every time I made an edit.) There is a fair amount of duplication and repetition in the content, and it's my sense that some sections can be compressed significantly while still providing a solid survey article. Some examples:

  • The "musical" episode probably doesn't need such extensive coverage; it is very well covered in the standalone article, and only a line or two at most is required, probably in the "overview". I'd suggest instead a better link to the fact that a soundtrack was issued for this particular episode in the "Merchandise" section.
  • Combine the "conception" and "casting" sections, moving the "production" section below that.
  • The "recurring characters" section needs a good pruning. Those of you more familiar with the show can identify which of the recurring characters are the most significant. I'd suggest limiting the list to those who have appeared in 5 or more episodes, or 4 or more episodes over 2 or more seasons.
  • I'm inclined to do some serious compression of the "Accolades" section, as this is well covered under a daughter article already.
    • I don't think that's necessary; I significantly covered the Emmys it received because that is the most prestigious award a series can receive. An idea of what you mean would be helpful. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The "US television ratings", "broadcast history", and "distribution" sections should be merged; there is a lot of repetition here. Only one table is needed, and I'd go with the one in "US television ratings". Exact dates of release of the DVDs is not needed, as they are covered in the season-specific articles. Is there any information about broadcast outside of the US?

    Risker (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    • I don't think those three sections are related. US ratings covers the show's viewership and ratings, Broadcast history covers renewals and specials/webisodes, and Distribution covers how the show is streamed besides television plus DVDs. I do, however, agree that the release dates are not necessary, and that the broadcast history table can be erased. I have been completely unable to find information about airing outside the US; I found some things such as where it airs in Canada, but just including random ones would be applying undue weight.
  • Overall, I think since this is the main page for the entire scope of Grey's Anatomy; everything should be covered using summary style, no matter what is included in the daughter articles. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Conception section

I've done a major re-organization of this section, trying to provide a more logical flow: racial diversity paragraphs brought together, paragraphs about the development of a medical show brought together, reducing repetition.

  • I've shaved down one or two quotes, although I think it would probably be a good idea to try to convert more of them to prose paraphrases, as this section is quite heavy on quotations.
  • At the end of this section, I have "commented out" this bit, because the reference source is a tertiary source itself. At the bottom of the reference source the author identifies three reference sources from which the content was derived. I'd strongly suggest looking at those sources to support this statement, rather than using this one; I'm not convinced it would pass the reliable source smell test.
    • "Prior to broadcast, it was announced that the show's title would change from Grey's Anatomy to Complications, although ultimately this did not come to pass.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?date=02/04/05&id=6822|title=Breaking News – Development Updates: February 4|date=February 4, 2005|publisher=The Futon Critic|accessdate=July 1, 2009}}</ref>
  • Some additional tightening up is probably still needed; the section on the program's debut might more appropriately go in the "Broadcast history" section, for example.

Now, it is quite possible that you disagree with this revision. If so, feel free to revert. If you are okay with it, then I will proceed with further sections tomorrow evening. Risker (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the revision in entirety! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Production section

Apologies for the delays. Darn this real life interfering with Wikipedia work! I've copy-edited this section, but there are several points to be addressed by the primary editors that can't be addressed by copy-editing

  • Placement of image: Please see MOS:IMAGELOCATION, this is something that is likely to catch you up at FAC. You might want to check images in other sections as well. Depending on your point of view, you might want to do all of the image moving at once.
  • Some of the references provided don't completely corroborate the statements, particularly those that say "X has done Y since Season Z". I have no doubt the information is correct, and I'm not sure how to better provide that corroboration.
    • I suppose if it's not backed, then perhaps it should be removed? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Update: I have an idea. The sentences that say when a crew member began working, can be backed with a {{cite episode}} reference of the crew member's first episode. Let me know what you think, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Works for me. You might want to touch base with one or two of the editors who frequently review references at WP:FAC to see if this would be a reasonable workaround. Nikkimaria is particularly talented in this area; she may have some other suggestions as well. Risker (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The second you said it I thought of her name. I'll drop a post on her talk page. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
          • On the one hand, {{cite episode}} is good for relatively trivial details - but if I watch the cited episode, am I going to know this is X's first appearance? Is he/she blatantly introduced in the episode, or do the credits mention that X is new to the show...or would I have to watch all the previous episodes and note that X appeared in none of them, making this episode X's first appearance? Citing an episode proves that X appeared in said episode, but depending on details provided may indicate only that X first appeared in this episode or earlier. (All that being said, I'd have to get really nitpicky at FAC to catch this, and unless I already watched the show I probably wouldn't bother to review the episode. So you'd "get away with it" out of reviewer laziness ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For ease of reading, I am only linking name of actor to role portrayed in the lead and casting sections; if not mentioned in the casting section, then the first time the character is mentioned. Thus, the two cast members who have directed are only mentioned by name and not by character (which isn't really material in this section).
  • More to come, I have time to do another section tonight. Risker (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast section, part 1 (first two paragraphs)

Okay, this one is pretty tough. There are a lot of issues with the quality and completeness of references in this section. I started looking for better refs online (which is hard, given how much is written about this show)...but then I finally figured out that almost all of the salient information is already in the articles about the actors themselves. I've only gotten to the end of the third season, with Kate Walsh leaving. Here are the list of references I recommend that you revisit; I'm going to leave it to you to format them, or pull them directly out of the relevant articles:

  • Sara Ramirez: use the Oprah Winfrey ref from her article, but don't use the Youtube reference, find out which show it was on and use a cite television program reference format instead. (There are serious questions about the appropriateness of linking directly to what is unquestionably copyright material on Youtube.)
  • Washington's firing: use the CBC reference in his article, which is complete and of much better quality
  • Walsh moving to Private Practice: use the New York Times article instead of the WSJ one, most of which is behind a paywall.
  • I started working on the bit about Chyler Leigh. Recommend using the People ref from her article, which gives the info about the end of Season 3 and that she was continued as a cast member in season 4.
  • This is as far as I'm going to get tonight (I have to find some local plumbers after my kitchen sink fell apart!), but you might want to look at improving some of the other references going on from that point, and make sure that the ones currently in use are at least as good and as complete as the ones in the articles for the actors. Risker (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast section part 2 (the rest), Filming locations and techniques, and Merchandising

  • Casting section is done now. I've cut out the quote box, as it seemed out of place and a bit repetitive; however, you may wish to add it back. Referencing appears fine.
  • Locations/Techniques, you might want to consider whether the full Sarah Drew quote is needed, or if it would be okay to paraphrase it instead; I've left it as is for now, but it is something to consider.
  • I've done a first run through Merchandising, but I think it will need some further tweaking. I did a lot of work with the online store section; please check to make sure I've not changed any context there.
  • Footnotes seem a bit odd; I ran into Footnote "e" in Merchandising, but I am unfamiliar with that style of referencing, and the Footnotes section does not give the "letter" of the footnotes themselves. I think you'll need to have the footnote letters visible for the FAC. Risker (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Grey's Season 6 Reviews

Hi there, I'm participating the weekly initiative by posting some Grey's season 6 reviews, I don't know how good quality they are but they can be evaluated. Links: [1] [2] That's all for now! Creativity97 (TALK) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, those links are "high-quality" enough for Wikipedia. Go right ahead, add it. Regards. TBrandley 16:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back so quickly! Will I receive a barnstar? Creativity97 (TALK) 16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll surprise you with a some barnstar thing on your talk page. Cheers, TBrandley 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your finding of these reviews, but they are not what I had in mind. In the weekly initiative, I said the article needed a season six review from "a renowned major news site, or a well-known magazine". If you look at the critical response section of the article, it is filled with reviews from renowned sites such as The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, etc. For an idea of other renowned critical review sites, see WP:TVRECEPTION. So while TV Fanatic is reliable, it is not a renowned news site or magazine, as I was looking for. If you can find a season six review from a renowned site, please post it here. Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked, but I hit a dead end. It was slim pickens for renowned sites, newspapers and magazines. Sorry, I did look though. I take another peak and post if/what I find, but I have doubts. Again, sorry. Creativity97 (TALK) 21:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Does The A.V. Club or TV Guide; IGN doesn't have anything. Regards. TBrandley 21:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing for TV Guide that I know of, I looked. I'm aware that IGN has nothing, that was my first check. Never heard of The A.V. Club, I take a peak. Creativity97 (TALK) 22:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing for The A.V. Club. Creativity97 (TALK) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Try TV recaps at Entertainment Weekly. Some episodic recaps say things such as "this season isn't going well", etc. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Move?

Why was the article moved? MisterShiney ✉ 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved it back to the original title over redirect per the naming convention and Manual of Style. Thanks for the heads up. TBrandley (what's up) 21:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. He did it again and it won't let me undo..... MisterShiney ✉ 23:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved it back again. The user has been warned a number of times regarding the typical naming convention, Manual of Style, and such. TBrandley (what's up) 23:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sequence box

Would someone please explain the sequence box near the bottom of the article, because to me it makes absolutely no sense without a title or any context. The Simpsons is previous to Grey's Anatomy: previous HOW??? Previous in a network lineup? Previous winner of some kind of award? Previous in the preference of the person who inexplicably placed the sequence box in the article?????? Cresix (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's something to do with the Superbowl...? MisterShiney ✉ 23:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TRLIJC19, the article's principal author. Under "Grey's Anatomy", it [clearly] says 'Super Bowl lead-out program'. It's a standard template used on all the articles of the Super Bowl lead-out programs. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Aye, but that makes no sense if you have no idea what that means and what do you mean by "Principle Author"? MisterShiney ✉ 23:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
MisterShiney, truer words were never spoken. There is no context. It needs a title or some other explanation or it needs to be removed. And no, TRLIJC19, there is no "principal author" and you do not own the article. Cresix (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Cut the attitude Cresix. If you want to change the template, discuss it on the template page. We are not going to deviate from the standard just because you two don't like it. As for principal author, grow up, and accept that it's a common term that article authors use. I never claimed that I WP:OWNED the article; I just wrote the whole article, hence I am the principal author. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It was not attitude. It was a general question. I for one have NEVER in years of editing Wikipedia heard another editor use the term "principle editor" to do so would imply that you see yourself as owning articles. You haven't written the WHOLE article. You may be one of its regular contributors but that doesn't mean that your word has more sway than anyone else's. I strongly suggest that you leave that term out in any future talk page discussions least it be taken the wrong way. And telling an editor to "grow up" is a borderline personal attack and having been there myself, would ask you to refrain from such statements that could be taken the wrong way.
As for the template, one could argue that it is pointless trivia, which should be avoided, as for not liking it, I have no real opinion either way, I was just responding to another editors justified query. Just because it is the so called "standard" doesn't mean that the consensus for it's inclusion can change. . Especially when it's only relevant for one episode. It could be replaced in the lead with a single line explaining that it was the lead out for Super Bowl. Just seems an unnecessary add on at the end of the article. MisterShiney ✉ 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone falsely claiming that he "wrote the whole article" is the epitome of assuming ownership. And I'll also ask for more civility and less personalization of this legitimate discussion. Now, let's all remain calm and see if there are other opinions. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney, with all due respect, you've been registered for 3 months, so please don't try to talk about your years of experience. As for "principal author" (not principle), several users such as the highly respected Ruhrfisch use the term in regards to articles they wrote. If one of you writes an article, feel free to call yourself that. And yes, actually I have written the whole article, and I pushed it to GA and A-Class; feel free to check the history to validate if you feel the need. Please remind me when I said my opinion trumped others'. Oh right, I didn't. I introduced myself as the principal author because that's what I am. I could've introduced myself as the coordinator of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy, but I don't see how that makes any difference. You should review WP:NPA, because it's not an "attack" to say grow up. If you want to change the consensus for the inclusion of the template, then discuss it at the post-Super Bowl talk page, because as I said, this article will not be the single deviation. MS, you clearly have no knowledge of proper WP:LEAD structure, because if you did, you would know that you can't just throw something in the lead and not mention it in the article's body. Cresix, it's not a false claim that I wrote the whole article. Believe it or not, I actually did. I'm not claiming ownership by saying this. And it's comical when you say "the way it's done on Wikipedia", because with all due respect, I'm a user with 4.5 years of experience, buckets of recognized articles, and established credibility. I worked my ass off on this article, and I will not be barraged my two random editors. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you have been looking at my user page. If you look closer, you will see that I was an IP editor for a number of years before I registered. This was mainly because I was on a dynamic IP and so kept getting abuse and unexplained reverts, accusations of sock puppetry for "not having enough edits" etc etc. As for Cresix, he has been editing almost as long as you if you check his history.
To be fair, I did say BORDERLINE. It's all about being civil and telling someone to grow up, having been there and said that, not only shows a lack of maturity on the person who said its part, but will automatically get the other person's back up. I constantly am learning this lesson. I would say that to any any editor who gave that sort of introduction because its peacockery (not talking about the policy) by saying "hey look at me, aren't I awesome?" and is like you, unintentionally or not, are looking down on other editors.
I have looked at the lead policy, and I saw that it was indeed already mentioned in the article in the US Television Ratings where it said that it was a lead-in from Super Bowl XL.
You're not being "barraged" by two editors, one person popped in to ask a justified question, you came in claiming you wrote the entire article when you didn't even start it and it has over 3800 editors editing it. You may have done extensive work on it since then (kudos by the way, awesome work) but please be aware of how you speak to other editors. Coming in flouting creds like that just gets people's back up and comes across like you are saying that your opinion trumps others - even if you are not saying it directly. Just let your reputation speak for itself. Just by clicking on your user page you can see the awesome extensive work you have done. But we are right in saying it's borderline acting like you own the page. Which I am sure, from your explanations, was not intentional.
Anyway, this seems to have gotten blown out of proportion and completely off topic. I beleive the question was answered and am happy to leave it there and strongly suggest that if Cresix is that concerned he should take it to the Super Bowl page. MisterShiney ✉ 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
TRLIJC19, repeatedly making false claims does nothing to help your arguments. A third grader could look at the page history and see that there have been hundreds of contributers to the article, including many who made their edits years before you registered on Wikipedia. So once again, you do not own the article (which would be true even if you did write the entire article), and you need to stop personalizing this issue and telling people what they do and don't know because that is the way it's done on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Cresix, Stop. You are now trolling and repeating what I have just said. Leave it and walk away. MisterShiney ✉ 23:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Cresix, it's ignorant people like you that cause people to jump ship from Wikipedia every day. There may have been hundreds of contributors, but I revamped the entire formerly-horrible article from top to bottom, so yes, I did write it. The sooner you come to terms with that, the better. As I said above, I do not claim ownership for this page (by the way, you can stop linking WP:OWN). As MisterShiney said, if you want to change the standard, talk about it at the appropriate central page. Otherwise, get over it and respect article authors the same way you would want to be once you realize what it is to put all your effort into an article. That's the *courteous* way it's done on Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
But you used other editors contributions did you not? So it was and is a collaborative effort. You may have written it in it's current form, but other editors have changed it and moved it around. The fact you feel you have to emphasis that "you" wrote the article would imply that you feel that you own the article buddy. Just calling it how I see it. MisterShiney ✉ 23:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Related Media - A Corazón Abierto

Hey y'all, currently Private Practice is listed as a related show on the sidebar and at the bottom, but shouldn't the two versions of A Corazón Abierto be listed there as well? They do have their own pages on the wiki that links can go to. The foreign adaptations are listed as related on other shows whose pages I follow like Law & Order and Super Sentai. 83.111.67.154 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-humorous question

Can someone please explain to me why this program has a ridiculous number of producers?


For example, I just watched an episode and counted them in the credits: it had FOURTEEN PRODUCERS!!


Is this nuts, or what? 70.106.253.163 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two of the links (294, 295) that lead to the people's choice blog state "page not found". This is probably due to the fact that they are close to five and nine years old now. Besides that small thing, this page is very well done and cited extremely well. Thanks for all the work! Sarahlancaster (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grey's Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vic aho089.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 3 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emahgoub.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikkimena.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Spoiler

I started watching the series and got a few seasons in. Checked the wikipedia entry and found this: "Grey is first featured as an intern and later becomes the chief of general surgery"

Major spoiler if you have only watched early seasons! Can we take it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.174.14 (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grey%27s_Anatomy/Archive_3&oldid=1142439207"