Jump to content

Talk:Grogu/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jabba is cuter, if you ask me. JOEBRO64 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]
  • "The Child... is a fictional character..." Alrighty, first things first: IMO, "fictional" is redundant. A character is, by definition, fictional. Even if they're based on a real person (like Creed Bratton), they're fictionalized to at least some extent. And even if we ignore that, no one is going to think a tiny green alien who appears in a TV series is an actual, living organism.
  • "... with whom he shares a similarly strong ability with The the Force." "Similarly" is implied by "shares". Also, the definitive article of "the Force" is not part of the concept's title, so it shouldn't be capitalized.
  • "The Child and the Mandalorian are the only two characters who..."
  • "The Child has received an overwhelmingly positive reception..." I don't doubt that it was overwhelming, but two things here: first, modifiers are generally unnecessary, and second, "overwhelmingly" could potentially be considered WP:POV. I don't think you'll lose anything by chopping it; after all, the reader is informed right there he's the show's breakout character.
  • "The Hollywood Reporter has claimed said the character..." "Claim is a word to avoid, since it's a loaded term and can call the credibility of the person/publication into question.

Appearances

[edit]
  • I would link Yoda's species at "the same alien species" in the first sentence of the section, given that it's done in the lede.
  • "As of the end of Season 1..." I'm not sure about this, since I'm not really used to writing articles about television, but should you say "the first season" instead of "Season 1"? I wouldn't think "Season" should be a proper noun, and MOS:SPELL09 recommends spelling out 0–9 in words.
  • "... the Mandalorian protects him and instead shoots and kills destroys IG-11." Missing a period. Also, I'm not sure "kills" is the best word to use here because IG-11 is a robot. Plus, he comes back a few episodes later, so it could potentially confuse readers when he's suddenly re-introduced in the section.
  • No other comments here, generally well written.

I don't see the point in providing detailed plot summaries of each episode The Child appears in. That seems redundant for each episode's own article. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization

[edit]
  • "Physically, the Child very closely resembles Yoda..." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain
  • "... with sharing his same signature green skin and long, pointed ears."
  • "Kevin Melrose of Comic Book Resources CBR.com noted..." This one is completely up to you, but the name of the website changed some time ago to just CBR.com (the article still resides at "Comic Book Resources" because of WP:COMMONNAME).

Concept and creation

[edit]
  • "The Child was conceived and created by Jon Favreau..." I personally think "created" is unnecessary because conceived sort of means the same thing. Also, it removes some repetition because afterward comes "... the creator and showrunner of The Mandalorian."
  • The "the" in "the Walt Disney Company" should not be capitalized.
  • "When CGI is utilized used..." This is another one that's up to you, but IMO "utilize" is almost always redundant to another, simpler verb.
  • The only real comment I have about the Filming section is if "When this story was later told to the public, some media reports mistakenly described it as if the producers of The Mandalorian were entirely replacing the Child puppet with a CGI creation until Herzog convinced them otherwise" is truly necessary. I don't see how a somewhat minor story that ended up not being true is beneficial to understanding filming, as it's pretty clear that was never the case.
  • Also, Adam Pally and Instagram aren't linked in the Filming section even though it's the first (and as far as I can tell, only) mention of them in the article.
  • "Pally punched the animatronic Child puppet very hard..."
  • Another minor thing that I've noticed around the article is that "internet" is capitalized. While this is purely stylistic and I don't think strongly, "internet" isn't really considered a proper noun anymore, so I personally think all uses should be de-capitalized. (I think it's also worth noting that people capitalized things like "telephone" and "phonograph" when they first came out, too.)
The term is capitalized here because it is capitalized in the Wikipedia article Internet, and I don't think it should be changed here until consensus charges the main article.— TAnthonyTalk 18:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

[edit]

Cultural impact

[edit]
  • My main problem with the "Critical reception" section is that it's essentially a bullet list of opinions that's been converted to prose. This is the "A said B" problem (see the essay WP:RECEPTION about this). This isn't a huge problem and if you disagree you needn't alter it too much, but there should at least be a sense of organization and cohesion. Here are some tips to help (a lot of these are present at WP:RECEPTION, but I'll list the most important points):
    • Group related opinions.
    • Paraphrase quotations, and don't rely on too many direct quotes.
    • Vary sentence rhythm.
Hey TheJoebro64, just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this and I'm not ignoring it, just got sidetracked by some real-life stuff, but I will try to get to it and your other comments very soon. — Hunter Kahn 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn, no problem. Take your time. JOEBRO64 21:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a shot at revising this section a bit. I didn't blow it up altogether and start from scratch, but rather tried to rework it and reorder it so it was less of a collection of quotes. I tried instead to group related opinions and focus on specific ideas/themes that stemmed from the critical reception; the Child as a pop culture phenomenon, contributing to Disney+'s success, making Star Wars more relevant for a wider audience, what it means for the future of puppetry and animatronics, etc. etc. I also scaled back on direct quotations and added more paraphrasing. Let me know if you think it needs more work. — Hunter Kahn 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Ref. 20: Remove the greater-than sign in the last name parameter.
  • Refs. 41, 50: This is from Forbes' contributors section, which doesn't have as much editorial oversight as the salaried-staff section. This shouldn't be too much of a problem, but I do think we need to double-check that the author of the article (Erik Kain) has credentials.
  • Ref. 42: The Niner Times is a student-run newspaper, so I don't think it'd classify as a reliable source.
  • Refs. 75, 84, 105, 175: The "B" in ComicBook.com should be capitalized.
  • Ref. 89: Vulture is missing a link.
  • Ref. 106: Same as I said about the other Forbes ref.
  • Ref. 112: Fix link formatting issue in the website parameter.
  • Ref. 122: What makes TVweb a reliable source?
  • Ref. 139, 189: Metro is an unreliable source, according to WP:RS/P.
  • Refs. 154, 159: What makes Junkee a reliable source?
    • I believe I've addressed each of the above; I made the fixes requested, and removes all the sources flagged as unreliable or questionable. Almost all citations I removed were used in combination with other citations to reinforce various facts, so removing them didn't require me to drop any content, with the exception of one fairly inconsequential sentence about Elisabeth Moss commenting on Baby Yoda. As for the Forbes writers, based on their body of work and other info I've seen online about them, it seems to me they are OK to cite in this story; I might have more pause if this were a complicated or controversial topic, but for a pop culture topic like this I'm less concerned. But let me know if you disagree. — Hunter Kahn 13:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

[edit]
  • None

Just to clarify, my review will mostly focus on tightening up the prose and if the cited sources are reliable. Since it's a big article, I'll spot-check a few references to make sure nothing is being misrepresented, but I'm assuming good faith so I'm not expecting anything significant. JOEBRO64 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grogu/GA1&oldid=992398539"