Talk:Janet(s)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Heartfox (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Review forthcoming. Heartfox (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Place's: use ''The Good Place'''{{'}}s for MOS:CURLY
- Done.
due to challenges of filming: due to filming challenges
- Done.
plot summary exactly 400 words lol
The episode was ultimately: It was ultimately
- Done.
wasn't: was not (MOS:CONTRACT)
- Done.
Carden found Harper and Kristen Bell to be the hardest impressions to perform; she later explained that she struggled to perform her impression of Harper as Chidi even though she could imagine it, while she found Bell's subtle actions to be hard to emulate.: Can this be rephrased/shortened into one sentence?
- Here's what I've got: "Carden later explained that she struggled to perform her impression of Harper as Chidi even though she could imagine it, while she found Kristen Bell's subtle actions to be hard to emulate."
many scenes were filmed: many were filmed
- Done.
Carden remarked that this aspect was the hardest part of filming for her, later remarking, "You kind of lose your mind a little bit." Can this be rephrased so "later remarking" is removed?
- How about this: "Carden remarked that "you kind of lose your mind a little bit" in those situations and called it the hardest part of filming for her."
and how the shots had to align: and the alignment of the shots
- Done.
shot: wikilink to shot (filmmaking)
- Done.
Ultimately, after combining: "Ultimately" isn't needed
- Done.
[5][4]: Switch footnote order
- Done.
special effects: wikilink
- Done.
easier to get permission: wikilink "permission" to music licensing
- Done.
achieved a 0.8: it's not really an "achievement" per se; use "received" instead
- Done.
18-49 demographic: use a – instead of a -
- Done.
Live+7 viewership: use "seven-day DVR viewership" for people unfamilar with what "Live+7" means
- Done.
thank you for italicizing names of works in prose even though their wiki articles for some reason don't
"at the absolute height of [her] powers.": while it does end with "powers", the full sentence is not quoted and so the final quotation mark should be within the period as its technically a fragment
- Done.
performances; she suggested that Carden: performances, suggesting that Carden
- Done.
was there legitimately zero criticism of the episode? The plot did sound pretty cool, but I'm just wondering if any dissenting opinions are available or if one of the reviewers didn't like something
- Honestly... not really. I couldn't find anything in any of the reviews that I already had included, and when I dug around on Google for any other reviews, I couldn't find anything there, either. (I actually found another review that I had missed that also praises the episode.) The closest I could find was that The A.V. Club's review is an A- instead of a full A, but I couldn't find anything to explain that in the full review. Feel free to check me, though — I may have missed something in a review by accident.
Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Los Angeles Times, and The Guardian should all be work= (or equivalent) in citations, not publisher=.
- Done.
TV By The Numbers should be TV by the Numbers and wikilinked
- Done.
ref 2, 12, 25 add url-access=limited
- Done.
can ref 14 be archived?
- Internet Archive says "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." If you know of any other places I could look, I'd be more than happy to check there.
in some of the ref titles you have left single quote marks (') while others have been replaced with ''; fix
- The reason for this is that some websites italicize the show's title, while others use single quotes around it. I tried to match the article titles to how the original websites wrote the titles to ensure the references were as accurate as possible. If this is not the norm, let me know and I can change it.
only thing I'm kind of iffy about is the mention of it being the writer's and director's third credits, but there isn't a citation after those sentences. maybe add cite av media for the previous two episodes or remove altogether?
- I've removed those sentences and integrated their full names into the surrounding sentences. Let me know if everything still flows clearly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never watched this show before, but this is a really nice article! Near-perfect prose, interesting to read. I've listed some suggestions above. Heartfox (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, RunningTiger123! Passing momentarily. Try archive.today for stuff Web Archive doesn't work on. Heartfox (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]