Talk:The Stag Convergence/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this in about a fortnight. 23W 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry for the long-ass wait.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Is that all that exists for the production section?
I've managed to find out when it was filmed. It was the antipenultimate date to be listed in the 2011/12 TBBT ticket section on here; I've added a note similar to The Convention Conundrum. I can't find anything else to add to the production section. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. I would merge the paragraphs somehow, though. ₂₃W (talk · stalk)
Merged. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American Idol had 14.87 million viewers, but "The Stag Convergence" beat all other programs in its timeslot. Maybe rephrase this as: With the exception of American Idol, which had 14.87 million viewers, "The Stag Convergence" beat all other programs in its time slot.
Done. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Nielsen rating system—change to: Under the Nielsen rating system (as the Nielsen rating system is the only way to formulate a Nielsen rating).
Done. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Day praised Penny's response to Howard's apology, claiming that it "provided a nice chuckle." Day rated the episode 4.5 out of 5.—change to: He rated the episode 4.5 out of 5, praising Penny's response to Howard's apology and claiming that it "provided a nice chuckle." (or something to that extent; less sentences needed and sounding less repetitive is the point).
Done. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The TV Critic review should probably be merged into the penultimate paragraph for the critical response section.
Why? Personally, I prefer the paragraphs the way they are, and if anything think they're a little bit too large - the first paragraph might put me off if I was reading the article. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the previous paragraphs incorporate multiple reviewers, and this last one is fairly small, I think it would fit just fine into the second one.
Okay, now the first paragraph's shorter, I think I'm happy with merging the TV Critic review. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd paraphrase the hell out of Shaffer's review, especially when the quotes span multiple sentences. ₂₃W (talk · stalk)
I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean, but I've tried to rephrase the review and quotes no longer cover multiple sentences. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe condense it or something. Having Shaffer's review be twice as long as Sava's is kind of weird, though, granted, his review is slightly longer.

Now that I see it, perhaps you should condense all reviews to two or three sentences at most. Maybe it reflects a change in my own writing style, but the less quotes crammed into it and the more you paraphrase their ideas, the better it reads. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yep - personally, I think Shaffer kind of missed the point anyway. I've condensed Shaffer's review. I can't see any other reviews that stick out for being too long - do you think any others need shortening? Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. ₂₃W (talk · stalk)

All for now. Will have more to say shortly. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 08:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Hope you can see where I'm coming from with the quotation issues. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also drop: This marks a slight drop from the previous episode aired three weeks prior, "The Hawking Excitation", and were lower than viewership for the following episode ("The Launch Acceleration"). Unless the drop was discussed by secondary sources I wouldn't include this. Ratings are generally a crapshoot; I don't think including this would help readers. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 19:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Done. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, pass. If you ever find more for the production section, please do include. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]