Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Versus the Wedding Planner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChuck Versus the Wedding Planner has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chuck Versus the Wedding Planner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 comment! 14:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review soon. Ruby2010 comment! 14:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • Who are Cropper, Judkins, and LeFranc in relation to the series (producers?)
    • No one significant. Just a director and a pair of writers. I believe they came onto the series in season 3 after the great crew member exodus following the writers' strike.
  • "It originally aired in the United States on April 18, 2011, on NBC as the twenty-first episode of Chuck's fourth season and the seventy-fifth episode overall." Needs a ref. I know it might seem silly considering the sentence content, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find one
    • Would a review from April 18 saying "tonight's episode" count? Or this one was written on April 19, says, "Gary Cole and Clare Carey were a pleasure to watch last night", and then, "Watch Chuck Mondays at 8/7c on NBC."
  • I'm sure any of the reviews you cited state the air date. If those sources don't state what episode number is it, I'm sure TV Guide would contain that information (plus it's a more reliable source).
  • The Flashes subsection is awkward. You might consider slightly rewording it and moving it to the reception section
    • Done.
  • I think the reception section needs another review or two (you currently only have three)
    • I will use the Buzz Focus review already cited for guest stars. I would use the CNN review, but for some reason my laptop blocks it now.
  • This is not required, but a screenshot would really jazz up the article
  • That's funny, because I always see comments encouraging screenshots (so long as they have proper rationales).

Just make the few fixes I suggested above, and the article will be good to go. On hold for seven days. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 14:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments: Ref 7 needs a publisher. Also, make sure all publishers are formatted consistently (websites like The A.V. Club should not be italicized). That's odd about the CNN review, as it works on my laptop. Maybe try it again on a different computer (since it's a good, reliable source to use).
I only italicized The A.V. Club because the Wikipedia article for it does. --Boycool (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section still looked a little awkward. I deleted Sarah describes the face as, "You saw something really bright and tasted something sour at the same time. since it was oddly placed and I didn't think it would help article readers. I also moved a few sentences around so that there are two equal length paragraphs. Based upon the article's current state, I'll pass it for GA. Always nice to see a previously neglected TV series gain a few dedicated editors. Nice work, Ruby2010 comment! 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --Boycool (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuck Versus the Wedding Planner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Versus_the_Wedding_Planner&oldid=1198374749"