Talk:Quantico (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched a bit of this show, but haven't been following it for a while, so don't mind being spoiled by going through this. I'll get to the review shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Okay, here are some issues that I have found reading through the article that should be addressed before it is promoted.

In general, there is a strange overuse of colons in this article. Usually, if leading up to a quote, a comma should suffice.
There are also some instances of the article discussing the source of information, i.e. "In an interview with Vanity Fair" or "The Hollywood Reporter said". You should be focusing on the information, not the source. If the reader wants to know where it came from, they can check the citation themselves. This does not apply to the critical response section.
I see some inconsistencies with reference formatting. Make sure publications/websites are linked to in each individual citation, that authors are presented with last name and then first name, etc.

Fixed. Coming to your third point, well, I have linked the sources on their first occurrence. Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to link them in each citation because a user will not necessarily read through the citations in order, they will jump straight to the one they want. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I believe the title card image does not have the correct non-free use license. There is a specific one for TV title cards.
There are quite a few people listed in the infobox that are not referenced anywhere in the article (composer, producers, cinematographers, editors). These all need citations, and preferably should be cited in the body of the article if they are going to be mentioned in the infobox. Also, is "Barabra D'Alessandro" a typo?
For the filming locations in the infobox, I don't think it is necessary to list Canada for Sherbrooke as I think Quebec is known similarly to Montreal. Also, it seems standard to just say New York City.

Done. I have tried to add new information in the development section.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

You introduce the idea that Safran is the showrunner only when he is being replaced. I think it would be better to introduce this in the first paragraph when you are talking about the executive producers, and then mention that Seitzman is taking over with the third season in that bit as well.
The fact that the series changed from two timelines to just one is mentioned twice in the same passage, with "Until its 35th episode" and "The series switched to a single timeline in its second season." I suggest dropping the former and saying "Quantico initially had two timelines..." then the second season switch line. The sentence describing the two timelines should also be consistent, not using parentheses for one clause and commas for the other.
Rather than saying the cast "changed significantly", I think it would be better to give a brief recap since the cast of a series is reasonably significant. You can keep the listing of the original cast as it is, and could then just say "Over the next few seasons [such-and-such] left the main cast, and [such-and-such] joined" or something along those lines.
The jump straight from praise to criticism is pretty jarring. Feels like there should be a "though" in there.
I don't think the People's choice awards is noteworthy enough to have such weight given to it in the lead here. There only needs to be a sentence, if anything at all, noting that it has been nominated for a few awards and then maybe that Chopra has won a couple.
The lead mentions the beginning of the first season and the renewal for the third season, but nothing about the second season. When did it premiere?

Fixed but I think mentioning the cast for every season will make the lead too big.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

It looks like the plot summary here is just a premise for the beginning of the series. It would be better if there was more of a brief summary for the whole show. MOS:TVPLOT suggests about 100 words per season.

An user, AlexTheWhovian, had reverted me many times for adding stuff in this section as according to him, we don't need to add everything.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could do a mock up of the summary elsewhere first, and we can discuss it before it is added. You can point Alex to that discussion if needs be then. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better the way it is. This what the actual premise of those two seasons are. Plus, their premise has been described in their respective articles.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters

The 'Full name "Common name" Surname' formatting is generally reserved for names that are not a commonly used shorter version, meaning Alex is obviously the short form of Alexander or Alexandra so we don't need to explain that. Especially here, it might be more appropriate at a dedicated character article.
FBI is linked twice in this section, and probably doesn't need to be linked at all given it is linked already in the overview.
The notes of which seasons each cast member was in is strongly discouraged per MOS:TVCAST. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the information is made clear in the casting section below (and elaborated on at the list of characters article).
Most importantly for this section, there are no citations. You should have references for each of the cast members and their characters, and ideally for the blurbs about each character as well.

Fixed but as usual that user removed that source which I gave for the cast.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it is unnecessary, especially for GA. Also, I would suggest you just bring up the citations you have for their initial casting down in the production section. That would be better than a single overall reference. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development

The first paragraph should be copy-edited to not be so quote-heavy.
"October 13, 2015" could probably just be "October 13". That paragraph has a lot of full dates so avoiding where possible helps with readability.
Since you note the number of episode for season one and season three, you probably should do the same for season two.
The paragraph on the racially diverse cast seems out of place. Shouldn't that be in the casting section? There is another paragraph on similar stuff there that it could be joined with.
The info on Safran stepping down should be written in past tense. Also, the season three premiere info sounds like it would be more appropriate in a release section, not here.

Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

The big quote from Chopra about her audition honestly seems more appropriate at her own article or something. It doesn't have much to do with the show.
The first three paragraphs seem to be presented in a weird order, jumping around in time. A linear explanation of what happened feels like it would work much better. Also, the statement "Casting began in February 2015" is unnecessary; that date could be worked into the content more naturally.
You should say who was killed off in the first season, so we know who they are talking about in the second season paragraph.
The third season info should have its own paragraph, not half with season two and half on its own.

Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

I think the first paragraph could do with a small copy-edit to make it feel more like it is about a single thing. At the moment, it is all talking about how the character was changed because of the actress, but it feels like different bullet points that have not be properly formed into a cohesive paragraph.
The line "Safran had plotted an upcoming plot point as the first season ended" either needs to be updated with the actual plot point now that we are well past that point, or removed if nothing notable came of that.
The quotes on the FBI and CIA could be cut down a bit and paraphrased. The last paragraph also seems like it wants to be part of the season 2 paragraph since it seems to be addressing similar concerns.

Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

The first two paragraphs don't need to be separated.
Can you explain what the production schedules are?

Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

We should not use editorial statements like the one that begins this section. If it is absolutely necessary to state that then it should be sourced, but it is generally fine just to let the scores and reviews speak for themselves.
There are a few instances where you don't give the name of the reviewer, just the publication or website. These need to have the reviewers' names.
There is more information on the critical response to the first season than there is at the individual season 1 article. I feel like some of this stuff needs to be moved over there, and then just be more of a summary here. And is there any more stuff from the second season to make it more balanced?
There should not be that collapsible column table thing for just two listings. And that is something I have often seen in an acollades section instead, so I would consider adding those two there.

Done but not many reviews are available for S2 and in most articles that column is present in the critical reception section.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

I have a couple problems here, but I'll talk about them in a different section below.

Accolades

There is no need to have the accolades in prose and in the table. It should be one or the other, and the table is the general format used. This isn't like the ratings table which can be confusing and can't hold all the details so we need to help it with prose elaboration.

Done but kept a line saying about "the first South Asian actor" thing as I don't think it fits anywhere else.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release

This is the only structural issue I have with the article—you have two separate sections about the release of the series, and they come after the reception section. It is confusing to have a section called "Broadcast and distribution", and then to take a major part of the series' distribution and put it in a separate section. I highly recommend that the home media info be a subsection of the other one. If you don't like having home media under "Broadcast", then I suggest a "Release" section with the broadcast one and the home media one as sub-sections of that. And all of this should be before the reception section. There cannot be a reception to a series before it is released: critics cannot review it before they see it, and their can be no audience ratings if it hasn't aired. It just does not make sense to have the release info after the reception section. Also, and this is where my comment about the ratings section comes back in, you have to do all the release stuff multiple times in the article because the ratings section doesn't have the context of the release section to help. So you have ended up with release dates in the ratings section and the broadcast section, instead of just noting when the series was aired, and then talking about the rating for those airings in the next section. This is all a pretty major one for the review. When these changes are made, you should add broadcast info for seasons two and three as well.

Done.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I am going to put the review on hold while the above issues are addressed. I am of course happy to discuss anything along the way. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for the detailed review. Let me know what you think.Krish | Talk 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've replied above in a couple places. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Done with everything and thanks again for your detailed review. I really appreciate it.Krish | Talk 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your responses, and that the article meets GA, so I'll go ahead and pass it. Congratulations. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]