Talk:Two Birds (Awake)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Two Birds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 01:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Image: Is the image necessary? From what I'm gathering, its just two characters talk. The FU rationale needs to be stronger on the image page
• Lede: You use the term 'kill him' twice in one sentence. I'd switch it up
• Lede: "2.10" you can drop the '0' since its after the decimal
• Lede: I think the production sentence should be merged with either the first or last paragraph.
• Plot: "The therapists claim that has is imagining this to cope." -> "The therapists claim that he is imagining the plot to cope."
• Plot: Maybe explain the red/green reality better. It's rather confusing if you've never seen the show
• Plot: "Still in the red reality, Michael visits the hacker suggested in the green reality, gains Hawkins' password and unlocks the file, which tells Michael that Hawkins and Kessel had a shipping container where they had been storing the heroin." This sentence is lengthy and confusing. I'd break it up and try to rephrase it so it sounds better
• Plot: Watch out for contractions: "they'll"
• Plot: "this reality's Bird is still alive" Which reality is 'this' (Red or Green)
• Production: The entire first paragraph is completely unsourced, as is the second sentence of the second paragraph. Overall, as with the other Awake article, I feel that this section is rather small, and not that broad. Is there anything else that can be used to bulk it up? Filming locations? Costs? Etc…
• Production: This section is ridiculously short. I let the other one slide, but I am still uncomfortable. For instance, the pilot has quite a bit written about it. Surely there is something more out there. Five sentences really is pushing it.
• Ratings: Again, you can drop the '0' since its after the decimal
• Response: "HitFix praised parts of the episode…" Which parts?
• Response: You used the term 'praise', or a variation thereof, five times in a row. Change the wording up a bit
• Response: Some of the reviews are short, like the TV Fanatic review. Maybe expand on these a bit

On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article. Tate Brandley Stockwell 02:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The reception section still needs a bit of work with word repetition as well as short reviews. Also, the whole red/green reality is still not very clear in the prose. Also, I missed this in my first sweep, the third paragraph has a lot of long and winding sentences and parenthetical information. I'd straighten all of it out and remove the choppiness.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I tweaked most of the article myself. I feel comfortable promoting it to GA. Good job.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

At Swim With Two Birds

Is it worth a mention that it seems to be referencing At Swim With Two Birds by Flann O'Brien...or is that OR--137.204.39.141 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)?

Will the real COPYVIO Please Stand-up?=

• I deleted the extensive plot. Normally, I would not think of disturbing someone else's work but due to a dispute that began in episode guide The Real Housewives of New Jersey, and the way that questions were handled there I think that attention needs to be drawn to the REAL COPYVIO and that is derivative plot descriptions that are more than a few sentences. Just for the record, I asked nicely more than once for them to back-off. Instead, people get blocked and banned and it was not even allowed to be discussed. 68.37.29.229 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My COPYVIO deletion was undone and I was threatened with a 3 month ban! But when I was trying to restore deleted material that was claimed to be COPYVIO... just making notes on the demise of Wikipedia here in case anyone is ever trying to see how and where it all went to blank.!68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please study plot and COPYVIO and derivatives. I've already posted the links before but I was ignored and banned so I don't feel like doing all of the work again. I am correct but politics rules the day around here I guess-(the downfall of Wikipedia).17:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)68.37.29.229 (talk)

Nope I wrote that summary myself. You just copyed a summary from a website violation copyright guidelines. Mine was wrote myself not a violation. TBrandley 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you still do not understand that re-writing someone else's plot is a COPYVIO as spelled-out here on Wikipedia (derivative). I posted links explaining it to you before.68.37.29.229 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) FYI, "copied" not "copyed". 68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC) And just because you were slapped with COPYVIO for pasting promotional content in episode guides, AND you were unable to defend yourself, does not mean that "it"-(using verbatim, word-for-word, NON FREE content), is a COPYVIO. What you and others advised me to do, (create my "own" plot synopsis as was done here), is IN FACT, COPYVIO. (again, "derivative"). Why was my "bold" edit which pertained to COPYVIO, undone, and not only that I was THREATENED with a three month BAN! if I fixed it again? Why not just fix the violation by keeping the plot synopsis to a few hundred words?68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Refrence: WP:TVPLOT "...As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation...Information about copyright fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"..." (copied from WP). There is a fair plot description at the top of the article. Just because you have space designated "PLOT"-does not mean that the entire plot with all of the details, (or ANY of the details!), should be included. If THAT is how you want things done, (the violation of someone's copyrights by posting unauthorized derivative plot synopsis-"COPYVIO"), well then, maybe you should not get so heavy-handed when other editors are doing things differently such as using Non free content with permission from the copyright holder? As a matter of fact, were you the person who insisted that text could not be considered "non free content"? It is on my talk page and whoever it was posted that to me incorrectly and never came back to admit that they were incorrect.68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Now I am going to make a BOLD edit again, and delete the "plot". Instead-of banning and blocking me, I suggest you do something productive and FIX it so that it is not COPYVIO.68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)