Jump to content

Talk:Love, Inc. (TV series)/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: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for the delay but will put up comments very soon. NumerounovedantTalk 15:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: No worries! I have been revising this article a lot by looking at FA and GA articles on television shows, and adding any new information that I could find. I believe that I have exhausted almost every source out there about this television show so I will not dramatically change anything, at least until the end of the GA review or if your comments require it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Early observations

So, the one glaring flaw that I noticed was the absence of reference to support the release dates of the episodes. All of them need separate citations for the air dates. NumerounovedantTalk 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Thank you for your comment. I have added references for each episode to support the release dates. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be referenced or addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "With an ensemble cast starring Busy Philipps" - "With an ensemble cast led by Busy Philipps" Just a suggestion you can keep your wording if you like though.
 Done Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a dating consulting agency." - I have never seen the show and am not clear of what the sentence suggests, but, isn't "in a dating agency" just enough?
 Done I was using a quote from the show's primary press release, but you are correct. It is better to just use "dating agency" as that is much more clear and direct. And very few people have actually seen this show lol Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UPN agreed to pick up the show under the condition that Doherty was replaced." - That is a really saying a lot, and is quiet ambiguous for a lead. Maybe try rephrasing to: "The series was picked up by the UPN, but, Doherty was replaced by Philipps." And then a new sentence maybe?
 Done Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leads talks about the filming locations, you could talk about the setting of the show as well as: The series was set in New York, but, the filming primarily took place in...".
 Done Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The series saw a low viewership..." to maybe "The series suffered from a low viewership..." as the following statement talks about the show being cancelled and even though its rather obvious, the change of phrasing definitely helps link the two statements better. (Although after having read it again your wording works too.)
 Done I prefer your word choice so thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Premise
  • I am not sure is "left by her husband", is appropriate, maybe try rephrasing to active voice. And maybe add the phrase "at the beginning of the series".
 Done I have changed it, but let me know if it needs more work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The future of the agency is put into jeopardy consideration its success and advertising relied..." - "into jeopardy considering that"
 Done Sorry for that stupid mistake >< Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Characters
  • "Described as an "idiot savant", He is" - caps fix
 Done Another very silly mistake >< Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "someone who is kind of hovering above the earth" - not sure of what the phrase means.
 Done Removed. The quote was intended to represent how the character was written as out there and eccentric, but it is a poor quote and this information was already conveyed in the previous sentences anyway Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Production

Needs a couple of minor corrections. I'll do that myself, it is easier than listing them here. NumerounovedantTalk 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes
  • @Numerounovedant: I have linked all the titles to the articles about the tv shows. I did not link the pilot (for obvious reasons), or Thick & Thin, the episode was named from a potential sitcom pilot that was not ultimately picked up. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is very misleading. Remove the links and add a footnote "Title reference" like this. But, it isn't a compulsion. NumerounovedantTalk 07:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: Okay then. I have reverted the changes. I do not see the need for a footnote for each individual episode as there is already a comment about this above the episode table. Also, I would prefer just to include a general comment at the top rather than include a footnote for each episode, if that is okay with you. I think this is more appropriate as the source being cited just has a general sentence saying the episodes were based on sitcom titles and does not reference specific episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. NumerounovedantTalk 15:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast history
  • "On August 6, 2005, UPN officially order the series for thirteen episodes." - "ordered"
 Done Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 7, 2005, UPN ordered a full season of twenty-two episodes of the show" - "The network later ordered a full season of twenty-two episodes of the show on November 7, 2005," so as to avoid reprtiton of UPN and overuse of similar phrases.

Rest looks good. NumerounovedantTalk 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response

Good job on the section, just the one thing since you mention in the lead about Philip's performance you might just want to quote the same here. NumerounovedantTalk 15:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I rearranged the section a little bit so the general negative reception of the show came first and then the negative reviews directed toward the character and actress after that. I used a rephrased version of the sentence from the lead as a topic sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Final Comments
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as the remaining comments are addressed, I'll be happy to pass. NumerounovedantTalk 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the review. It was very helpful and improved the article by a lot. I hope that I did not pressure or force into doing the review. I actually enjoyed writing this article a lot more than I expected (especially since objectively the show was pretty bad lol), and this might actually be one of the articles I am the most proud. I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Also, feel free to message me if you need reviews for anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All your hard work shows,the article covers all the major aspects well, and hardly any changes were required. Great work, Pass. NumerounovedantTalk 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: Thank you for your review. You have helped to make this article a lot stronger. I look forward to working with you in the future :-) Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love,_Inc._(TV_series)/GA1&oldid=1136258148"