Talk:When You're Lost in the Darkness/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) 02:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am going to start reviewing the article and will try to write most of the suggestions as soon as possible. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very well written article, but there are a few typos and other minor fixes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pretty solid, with just a few nitpicks.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs look solid and properly formatted to me.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reliable sources, some social media and interview links are used but only to verify statements by people involved in the show's development.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks like good sourcing, I spot checked almost all of the refs and I only found small issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Comes up clean on Earwig, and nothing stood out to me.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm not seeing any major omissions but I will mention if something jumps out at me during this review (unlikely because this is so comprehensive).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article appears really neutral and I think it accurately encapsulates the overall critical reception of the pilot. It was an almost overwhelmingly positive reception with some notable critiques.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I see some recent good faith edits and reverts but nothing that seems like it makes the page contentious.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Relevant and properly tagged images, honestly good work finding so many quality illustrations.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	These all look good to me.
	7. Overall assessment.	Awesome job on this nom (and all of the LOU pages you've worked on). I'll flesh this out a bit more.

Lead

The caption of the image in the infobox could be more succinct.

“with praise for writing, direction,” - maybe “praise for its writing, direction” etc

Overall the lead is well written and summarizes the article well.

Plot

Nice job summarizing the plot, and keeping the length just right. Per MOS:TVPLOT, since the cast is discussed elsewhere, they shouldn’t be named in the “Plot” section. We can add their full name to “Casting and characters” though.

Conception and writing

“was set to direct several the first few episodes.” - Typo?

Which part of the sentence does Ref 12 support?

Ref 18, I can’t see where the interview confirms this but I might have missed it.

• The relevant quote from Mazin: "I was directing that episode when [Joel and Ellie] come together for the first time". ☔

Other than this, I think the page is solid. Most of these issues are pretty small, technical changes so this should be ready to pass pretty soon.

Music

I’m not sure if the lyrics from “White Flag” need to be included, usually even articles about songs include only small snippets of lyrics.

Filming

Refs 55 and 56, the guild document confirms July 12 but the CBC says the (outdated) info about July 5, so it can be removed or placed at the end of the sentence.

In the second paragraph, three different sentences reference Ref 29. The first two can be removed, and the last one left in to support them all.

Reception

“GameSpot's Mark Delaney said Pascal made him cry twice and lauded his ability to portray different sides of Joel” - Can you change this line to describe more about what Delaney appreciated about the portrayal instead so it’s less about the reviewer?

Final comments

Honestly, the page is very solid and I'm mostly nitpicking here. It's fun to revisit this article and see how it's grown since it was at DYK. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, BuySomeApples; I appreciate the nitpicking! I've gone through and addressed your concerns (and clarified one above). Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice work @Rhain: I've made one or two small tweaks but this is ready otherwise. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.