Talk:Preggers/GA1

GA Review

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

Just a few minor items, but I'm sure these can be addressed very quickly...

Lead:

As per MOS standards, the first sentence should be "Preggers is the fourt episode of the American television series Glee." Remember that not only US-readers will be reading it.

Plot:

"Quarterback and fellow glee club member Finn helps Kurt to practice and become the team kicker." I found this a bit confusion. Did Finn become the kicker, or Kurt? Which one is quarterback? Can you reword to be more clear?
"When Finn's girlfriend Quinn tells him she is pregnant, Finn asks glee club director Will Schuester to coach the football team at dancing..." What does Quinn's pregnancy have to do with Finn asking this guy to help coach the dancing?
You don't need the citation tags. As per WP:MOSTV, "The television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question."

Production:

Almost everything in the first paragraph except the writer and director credits are uncited. Can you produce a source for that information?

Reception:

I think you give too much space to the critics. I'm my episode articles (ex: Dead Celebrities or The Set Up (Parks and Recreation)) I only give a few sentences to each critic. This might be a matter of personal preference, but in giving so much to the critics I think it gives them undue weight. However, this section is still well sourced and informative, so I won't hold up the GAN review for it. Just keep this in mind for the future.

Nice job overall! I'll place this on hold until the outstanding issues are addressed. — Hun ter Ka hn 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! I've changed the first sentence, dropped the cites from the plot and hopefully clarified the awkward sentences. I've added a source to "Production" which mentions Kurt Fuller's guest appearance, but couldn't find a source for the recurring cast information mentioned. I dropped those few sentences entirely, with the rationale that any of actual importance to the episode are already mentioned in the "Plot" section. Wrt "Reception", I have had it mentioned to me before that I tend towards including too much in these sections, which I have been trying to work on, evidently not quite successfully yet! I've cut it down by just over a third, hopefully making it a bit more succinct, and will continute to bear this in mind in the future. Frickative 16:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Reception is still a bit long for my taste, but much more manageable.

A good article is:

Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
Neutral: Yes.
Stable: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

By the way, you might considering trying to find an infobox image that meets fair use rationale. Otherwise, though, congrats! That's a pass! — Hun ter Ka hn 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]