Talk:Invasion (Grey's Anatomy)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invasion (Grey's Anatomy) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Invasion (Grey's Anatomy) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage / Grey's Anatomy Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Grey's Anatomy task force (assessed as Top-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Invasion (Grey's Anatomy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 14:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:

Lede: Remove unneeded comma before Grey's Anatomy
~~Lede: In "Invasion" → In the episode~~
~~References: Ref. 6 - Remove italic words on the reference(s)~~

That's all! On hold for now. TBran dl ey 15:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I have a few concerns with the standard of prose in this article. I made some corrections as I read through it, but I don't have the knowledge to fix everything up myself. I am also concerned about how disjointed the plot section is. For example Yang breaks down, and cries to Meredith about how she wants a cardiothoracic surgeon to begin working at the hospital just seems to be there without any context. There are a lot of run-on-sentences. Dr. Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) is recovering from her liver transplantation surgery, and Dr. Izzie Stevens (Katherine Heigl) attempts to fight with a Mercy West resident, Dr. Reed Adamson (Nora Zehetner), over Dr. George O'Malley (T.R. Knight)'s locker. How is Grey's recovery related to Stevens locker fight? And what does "attempts to fight mean"? Finally and probably most importantly there is an over reliance on large quotes in the production and reception sections. One third of the production section consists of a quote. The last two paragraphs of the reception section almost entirely consist of large block quotes. AIRcorn (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also concerned about the prose: the Reception section uses "was also" two sentences running in the second paragraph, and phrases such as "MacKenzie concluded of Stevens departing" in that paragraph and "was also positive of the storyline" in the next need work. The photo caption in the section is puzzling: none of the reviews listed specifically compliment Sandra Oh, so this appears unsupported and unsourced. If one or more reviews compliment her role rather than her, that role needs to be in the caption, and a specific review ought to be footnoted in that caption. Using and citing only two reviews seems a bit weak for a GA, and extrapolating from two that the "episode received positive reviews among television critics" is quite a stretch. Are those the only two reviews that can be reliably sourced? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments BlueMoonset and Aircorn. I will do a copyedit to tidy up the prose, as well as search for more reviews. However, I don't know how many more I could find that would actually be considered a reliable source. Thanks again, TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given 'plot' a significant copyedit, and a general one to the entire article. I have eliminated almost all block quotes, paraphrasing most, and there is only one now; I feel it adds to the reader's comprehensiveness. I found a recap of the episode on TV Guide, but there was only a bit of actual reviewing in that article. I also found one from BuzzSugar, but I don't know how reliable that source is. BuzzSugar is a daughter page of PopSugar, which is published by Sugar Inc.. That being said, if you feel the source is not reliable, don't hesitate to remove it. I hope I've addressed everything sufficiently, and if not, please let me know. Thanks again, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post passing comments

I was asked at my talk page for some more comments so I will present them here. I think the article has improved a lot since my original comments.

It is set in a fictional hospital in Seattle, Washington. Is this necessary? I would think that most episodes would be. It seems a bit repetitive to include it in every one. Unless it is a change I would leave it out.
after donating a portion of it to her father. A portion of her liver?
Despite her mindset that all Mercy West residents would act in the manner of Adamson, Not sure what this means? Do you mean that Yang thinks all mercy residents are @#&4's because of the way Adamson treated Stevens over the locker? Or is it Stevens thinking this?
Lexie works with Mercy West resident Works could mean a few things. It is preety obvious that it means treats, but it is probably better to be as specific as possible.
and the two get in several disagreements, leading Lexie to steal her diary. Not clear why the two get into a disagreement. I am assuming it is some moral issue with treating a burglar, but it might need a bit more clarification. Also leading is probably not the best word. Maybe "in retaliation" or something similar. It is not automatically obvious why a disagreement would lead to dairy stealing.
After arguing over surgical cases for the entirety of the day, Yang comes to the realization that she needs a cardiothoracic surgeon to work at the hospital. Should it be "they need a cardiothoracic surgeon"? Could you make it clearer why she thinks this. Are they arguing over a case involving the chest? If so I would add that in there to make it clear why she wants the surgeon.
After being mistreated by Kepner, Lexie begins to mock her about what is written in her diary, but subsequently apologizes. Is this an important plot point?
Having found out about Stevens' mistake, Dr. Miranda Bailey (Chandra Wilson) reprimands her reports her to the chief of surgery Dr. Richard Webber (James Pickens, Jr.). Think you have made a mistake with this sentence. Does she :reprimand her" or "report her"?
He deemed the theme of the episode "invasion", adding that all the character's lives were being invaded. What does this mean?
Still feel that the large quote is a bit over the top. Quotes should really be only used if there is no other way to present the information and then should really be as short as possible. One way to think about it is to treat quotes like non-free media. What does it add to the article and can that information be presented without using the quote. I am not saying it should be removed, but I do think articles are much better if the use of quotes is controlled.
just behind CBS's juggernauts that is quite a strong characterisation
MacKenzie highly praised the characterization of Kepner, in addition to Capshaw's performance, commenting This is a bit awkward. It starts praising one actor and the say in addition to .... I don't understand why it is in addition to. The quote concerns Capshaw so how does Kepner tie in. This could probably be written a bit clearer.

I think you have done a good job of improving the article and many of these are boarderline nitpicks, but I though I would include them anyway in the hope that they would help you with other articles. AIRcorn (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invasion (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) 10:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invasion (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) 22:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]