Talk:Hi, Infidelity

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hi, Infidelity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Picking this one up for review. Will have my comments posted as soon as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

After having worked with Johanna on the series finale article of Veronica Mars, I have a newfound interest in the show and I'll be making some copy edits in the article to help the cause! NumerounovedantTalk 17:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and Lead

• I would include a non-free screenshot in the infobox. The choice of image is up to you, but I feel that since this about such a visual subject, that an image is absolutely necessary.

• If you insist, I will find a scene, but hear me out here...I used to use screenshots relatively freely but have since changed my point of view. I'm not a "don't use non-free media ever" type of person, but if you look closer at the non-free content criteria, rule 8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Given that no particular event is discussed in the article, I don't find adding a screenshot to have any particular importance. Here are two of my GAs where I have used a screenshot, and you can see why in the captions: "Of Vice and Men" and "The Bitch Is Back (Veronica Mars)". Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand, especially given your point that a screenshot would not add anything to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would include the run-time. This is really up to you as I know you are more against it from my past reviews of your articles, but I think it is important and necessary. Reference the run-time as well if you decide to include it.

• Done I'm not against it per se—I think it's a good idea—it just wasn't common practice for me and I was only half sure that that was a parameter in the template. Fixed. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the second paragraph reads awkwardly to me. I think it is because you are trying to string together two larger points together. I think the main part that makes me dislike the sentence is the interruption of the first clause as I feel it breaks the flow of the sentence and makes it a little too choppy. I would replace with "In this episode, Veronica investigates an accusation that she plagiarized a criminology paper only to to find out that her teacher is having an affair with Mindy O'Dell (Jamie Ray Newman)" Keep the links obviously and you do not have to follow my suggestion, but I feel the most direction approach is always a good idea.

• Done I like the alternative. I originally revamped this page in summer 2015, and I remember feeling a bit crunched while writing this article. Sorry for all the writing errors; I definitely did not take a good enough look through the article before nominating. My apologies. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Use Piz and Wallace's full names when you first introduce them.

• Done

• Use Harmony's name when you first introduce here.

• Done

• I would separate the second sentence of the third paragraph into two as it appears to be covering separate topics and could benefit from clarification. Why did the two actors lobby for more screentime together? Just because of one episode? I would be a little more specific (of course, be concise as it is the lead, but it should give a better indication of what you are talking about). I would also clarity the comment about Rose's character. To me, it sounds like you are talking about a storyline with Rose's character and Max being planned but cancelled for some reason, but I do not think that is what you are intending. Just a little confused on this part.

• Done I neglected to mention this in Production, but they had previously been starring characters on a show for seven seasons and sort of reignited their friendship while on set of that first episode. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Change section title to Plot
• Reword the first sentence to be more direct. Who is the person confronting Claire?
• When you first mention a character in this section, use his or her full name. Examples "Claire Nordhouse, Stosh "Piz" Piznarski, etc.) Check this section for all of them as I will not be repeating the same criticism over and over for each one.
• What is Wallace caught cheating on? Again be specific.
• In the third sentence of the first paragraph, you do not need to repeat Veronica twice.
• Is there a reason why you do not refer to the professor's name? Until I looked at the infobox, I assumed he was not given a name. Names are important so I would include it as leaving him unnamed makes me perceive him differently then if he is named.
• What do you mean by "a former client"? Clarify meaning.
• I would introduce Tim Foyle as a teaching assistant to clarify how he could think Veronica was plagiarizing.
• Reference actor when introducing Piz; same goes for Veronica. Check to make sure all the actors are properly introduced in this section.

• If I reference them in the lead, I don't link them again in this section in order to avoid WP:DUPLINKS. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This was more of a general comment to the entire article to introduce the characters by their full names somewhere in the text. Now, that you have corrected it, then it should be fine.

• I would clarify this part of the sentence "she makes up a lie good enough to divert his attention." as it reads somewhat informally. I would clarify what the lie was.
• Separate the second sentence of the second paragraph into two as it can lead to some confusion as it currently stands. When reading it the first time, I thought "the paper" was referring to whatever Wallace did when cheating.
• Restructure this sentence as it reads very awkwardly "When Veronica and Logan get room service, Jeff Ratner appears, and Veronica accuses him of framing her, which he denies."
• You do not need to repeat Parker and Piz twice in the sentence about the possible romantic attraction as it reads unnecessarily repetitively.
• Again, use Mercer's full name (Properly introduce the character)
• The sentence with Veronica going to the police and Wallace dropping basketball should be separated into two sentences. These ideas are not well connected into the same sentence as they are referring to two very different situations.
• Again, just referring to the professor as "he criminology professor" is so much more awkward then just using the name.
• Restructure the second sentence of the third paragraph as it reads very awkwardly.
• I would clarify "this experience" as "a near-death experience" or something along those lines to be more specific.

• It wasn't a near-death experience, but I think it was more the trauma of the incident, so I changed it to "this traumatic incident..."

Thank you for clearing it up. Since I did not see this particular episode, I was not sure, but I knew it need clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clarify what you mean by “caught up by his ‘spell’”
• Restructure the final two sentences of the last paragraph as they read very awkwardly.

I have fixed everything you mentioned in the Plot section. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Production

• Remove actor in front of Enrico Colantoni

• I believe Numerounovedant already fixed this. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why did they lobby so much to get more storylines? Is there a way you can bring more clarity/expand this part? Why was the one episode so impactful that they lobbied so much after filming it? Be more specific here.

• As I mentioned in the lead, they were friends from acting together on a seven-year long sitcom.

Thank you for adding this in. This is a recent and much needed addition as the version I read without it was very unclear so the meaning is much clearer now. Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure why the second paragraph is relevant to this article. While I can understand that is the first episode to feature Max, why is he really relevant to the production of the episode? He does not seem to impact the episode much if at all. The last sentence is also very unclear and poorly constructed. The quote about the call is good and somewhat provides a reasoning for the inclusion of a paragraph about Max in the production, but I am not fully convinced. Also, the phrasing "was planned" makes me think of something being planned and cancelled, which again I do not think you mean

• I do not include him in my comment for fear of the synopsis running too far over the recommended word limit, but he does have more than a cameo in the episode. He appears in several scenes as a suspect. The DVD commentary uses all of this within the context of the episode. The important part for me is "since the beginning of his appearances". Thomas and co. are very clear that the idea for this storyline began during production of this episode, which is why I think it's relevant. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Edited my comment for clarify. Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the main word that confused me is "planned" as it really makes me think the storyline was planned and then cut later on, but I think that is just my misinterpretation of it. The section seems fine now, but the only question I have left for it is: Who is Michael Mitchell and why is relevant enough to be referenced here? You do not mention him anywhere else in the article.

Reviews

• Remove comma around "of IGN"
• The first two sentences seem unnecessarily wordy and could be condensed down into a single sentence
• This may be one of my pet peeves, but I really dislike how you just left an entire quote without integrating it into a sentence. I am not a fan of just abandoning quotes in a section. Either make it a block quote or incorporate it in a sentence to make it more readable and flow with the rest of the section (because right now it stops everything and the progression of the paragraph)
• I am not sure if the entire quote from TV.com is necessary. I would prefer you clip it and only incorporate the important parts in a sentence. You seem to rely too much on quotes in this section to do all the work for you without properly framing them.
• Replace “its highest rating for the season thus far” with “which is one of the highest ratings given for the season” since all the recaps for the entire season is available.
• Again, I think the Sepinwall quote can be better used in this section. It is a good quote (like the rest) but it needs to be better framed.
• Correct the quotations around the Kaiser quote on the radical feminist.
• Restructure the Kaiser sentences as they read very awkwardly and are poorly constructed.
• Again, this part is relay far too much on the quote to do the heavy lifting. Frame it in a sentence.
• This section needs significant revisions as the use of quotes overall is just poor to be perfectly honest.

I have fixed everything in this section as well. This was just before a string of helpful GA reviews greatly aided the exact things you're talking about—using quotes correctly. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Great job with the reviews section! Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• This is not required for GAN, but archive all your links when you have the time to avoid any broken/dead links in the future.

Final comments

• @Johanna: Overall, this article needs a lot of work in terms of sentence construction, clarify, and use of quotes. It can definitely reach the level of a Good Article, but it needs substantial revisions in certain sections to get there. Let me know if you have any questions or comments on my input. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I have fixed most of your comments, but see where I have disagreed a little. Thanks for the review, and take a look at the article again! :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Johanna: Thank you for your quick responses to my comments. You have done a lot of great work with the revisions (the article was already in really great shape, I just was being more focused on the details to make sure it was right). I agree with your comments about the image so I think it is best that this article does not use a screenshot and I have a better understanding of the inclusion of Adam Rose in the "Production" section. I have just one very minor question to ask before passing this (and it is very minor so it should be a quick fix). Who is Michael Mitchell and why is he referenced in the article? (I may be missing something obvious). Again, I hope my review helped at least just a little. I try to be as thorough with my comments as I can be. Once the point I mentioned above is figured out, then I will pass it immediately :-) Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Mitchell was a part of the show, played the love interest of Majorino prior to Rose. Although his mention might just be fine, I find the phrasing rather awkward. NumerounovedantTalk 05:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Vedant is right. I have fixed the phrasing of that part, splitting it into two sentences. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 14:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Johanna: Thank you for your response to my review. I am going to pass this article now. ✓ Pass Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2016 (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):

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: