Talk:Letters of Transit/GA1

GA 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.

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

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review in a few hours, TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the article, and list any existent issues below. At a start, there is no reason to quickfail; the article is in seemingly good shape. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

I try to break down the issues in a chronological way, that makes it easy to locate where the issues are. If you question or disagree with an error listed, please leave a note under the issue, explaining why.

Lead
- Paragraph 1
  - This sentence: ""Letters of Transit" is the nineteenth episode of the fourth season of the Fox science-fiction drama television series Fringe, and the series' 84th episode overall.", should have a comma before 'Fringe'.
- Paragraph 3
  - This sentence: "The episode first aired on April 20, 2012 in the United States.", should be merged with the next sentence: "It was watched by an estimated 3.03 million viewers.", ultimately reading: "The episode first aired on April 20, 2012 in the United States, and was watched by an estimated 3.03 million viewers."

Infobox
- Image
  - Fringe Letters of Transit titlecard.jpg needs a much better non-free rationale.

I tried to think of a good rationale to input, but failed. I'll remove it from the article. I may add a better screenshot later. Ruby 2010/2013 00:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Please add the episode's running time.

Plot
- Paragraph 1
  - I'm not familiar with the show, so I don't know if 'Fringe' is a character/thing of the series, but in this sentence: "They killed many in an event called "The Purge", and transform the remaining into a totalitarian culture; though members of the Fringe division attempted to fight the takeover, they were easily defeated, and the remaining Fringe division allowed to remain to police the human "Natives".", if you are referring to the series' name, "Fringe" should be italicized.

In this context, the department is called "Fringe division", so there is no need for italics. Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Paragraph 2
  - In the first sentence, a link to FBI might be worth including.
  - Again, in this sentence: "They are unaware they have alerted Fringe division [...]" if you are referring to the series' name; italicize it.
- Paragraph 3
  - Again, in this sentence: "They are able to free Astrid, but as Fringe forces approach [...]", possibly italicize.
  - In this sentence: "Then Peter comes to recognize Etta as his daughter, Henrietta, wearing a fired bullet as a necklace.", the phrasing is awkward, and it might read better as: "Peter then comes to recognize Etta as his daughter, Henrietta, wearing a fired bullet as a necklace." Note the switch between 'Peter' and 'then'.

Production
- Paragraph 1
  - This sentence: ""Letters of Transit" was written and shot before the series renewal for a fifth season, but "Letters of Transit" was always envisioned as a genesis for season five." sounds repetitive. Perhaps rewrite it as: ""Letters of Transit" was written and shot before the series' renewal for a fifth season, but it was always envisioned as a genesis of the season." Also note that 'series' needs an apostrophe after it.

Agree about that needing a rewrite. Not sure what happened there! Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Paragraph 3
  - This sentence: "Cusick had worked with co-creator J.J. Abrams and executive producer Pinkner on the ABC series Lost.", needs a comma after 'ABC'.

Cultural References
- I think this should be merged with 'production', as it still has to do with 'production', and does not seem worthy of its own section.

I understand what you're saying here, but I have tried to keep some consistency across all the Fringe articles. If there are enough of them (and there are in this episode), I designate cultural references as their own section. I'm not wedded to the idea however if you remain unconvinced. Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Entertainment Weekly should not be linked, as it was already linked in 'production''s fourth paragraph.
- This sentence: "Matt Roush of TV Guide noted that the episode title "Letters of Transit" alludes to a key element of the film Casablanca.", needs commas after 'title' and 'transit'.

Reception
- Ratings
  - Merge this and 'reviews' into just one section: 'Reception', because single/double line sections detract from the readability.

Same response here as above for cultural refs. The sections are divided for consistency. I can try to scrounge up some more ratings information, but don't think the article's final rating should wait on that. :) (In other words, when I have free time and access, I can add time shifting content). Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Remove the link to 'ABC' as you already linked it above, in the third paragraph of 'production'.
- Reviews
  - As I said above, merge this and ratings into one 'Reception'.
  - Paragraph 1
    - This sentence: "IGN's Ramsey Isler gave the episode a mixed review, noting that its concept is "intriguing, bold, and extremely risky. I'm just not sure if it works. It's such a drastic change of scenery and tone it's hard to say whether this is genius or madness."" reads wrong. Due to 'concept' not being in quotes, the text after 'risky' does not go along with the 'concept' phrase. It should be rewritten to read: "IGN's Ramsey Isler gave the episode a mixed review, noting: "Its concept is intriguing, bold, and extremely risky. I'm just not sure if it works. It's such a drastic change of scenery and tone it's hard to say whether this is genius or madness.""
  - Paragraph 2
    - Again, unlink Entertainment Weekly.
    - This sentence: "Tucker's EW colleague Jeff Jensen commented [...]" should refer to Entertainment Weekly in full, not 'EW'.

References
- Preferably standardize the dates on the references (ie. most use YMD, but ref 13 uses MDY)

Good catch. Fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the review on hold so the nominator can address the problems. Please fix these issues within seven (7) days and then I'll continue on with the review. If these issues are not fixed within the limit, then the nomination will unfortunately have to be failed. When you fix an issue, please strike through it using this template: <s>Issue to be resolved.</s> When you type that, it will appear like this: ~~Issue to be resolved~~. Looking forward to finishing the review, TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I will address your comments shortly. Ruby 2010/2013 04:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done or replied to. Thanks again for the review! I know I missed some silly things, so thanks for catching them. Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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):
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:

The discussion above 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.