Talk:Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 02:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Thoughts

Initial thoughts before I start the "official" review:

To meet all the criteria, this article will need a background subsection with the Plot, to introduce readers unfamiliar with Twin Peaks to the basic plot and characters. This is needed before the episode's plot. I asked for this during the GA review of Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and the editors wrote a nice section, so that could serve as an example. Actually, I committed myself to writing such a section for the main Twin Peaks article, so I can finish that up this weekend, and add a version to this article. Did I just volunteer? Not sure if that is technically allowed by a GA reviewer, but whatever. AstroCog (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very famous episode of television, and I'll bet with some hunting, we can find some images from it that were used by other media and thus make it easier to write fair-use rationales. I'd like to see more images. AstroCog (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of more, many of the references are from the (very good) Lynch on Lynch book, but that means the article may not technically be completely neutral, since Lynch is the creator/EP of the show. I'll have some time this weekend to look up some extra articles to include, but if Grapple X wants to dig up more neutral sources in the meantime, full steam ahead! AstroCog (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the DVD extra in which Michael J. Anderson describes how to talk in the Red Room is just him making stuff up, so it's not reliable. Somewhere, I read or heard an interview with Lynch that the actors had to listen to the lines backwards and learn to repeat the sounds. Just reversing the phonemes in the words wouldn't give the effect that is actually head in the episode. This needs to be investigated, and again I might have that source sitting around somewhere. AstroCog (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a background section here. I'm not sure how detailed it should be but it's a start. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was avoiding additional images as I plan to record myself demonstrating the "backwards speech" soon, and having that sound file sitting in a little box, along the quote box, might make another image seem over crowded. If you think either of those should be ditched for another image, perhaps a picture of Cooper's stone-throwing exercise would work? GRAPPLE X 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't do the thing with the backwards voice, because I would consider that OR. Once the article is expanded enough, more images won't make it too crowded. Perhaps a good search through old TV Guides would give a preview ad for the episode. I'm going to the NYPL this month to do more research and I can check out the microfilms to see if I can get one...quality won't be good, though. Would be nice to find an original for scanning. AstroCog (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. I just figured it would be a good idea to demonstrate what the effect sounded like, since it's hard to describe in words. I'll see if I can find another image, then. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what else I can find in addition to the Lynch on Lynch book. I don't think the reliance on that source skews the article away from neutral, as it's not used for subjective matter (I'm not quoting Lynch on how good or bad the episode was, for example), but more secondary sources would always be a plus, I suppose. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one: Time; 5/21/90, Vol. 135 Issue 21, p86 AstroCog (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another: People; 5/14/90, Vol. 33 Issue 19, p83, 6p AstroCog (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unread, but possible source, about MJA: Maclean's; 9/15/2003, Vol. 116 Issue 37, p58-58 AstroCog (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible source: Video Magazine; Aug94, Vol. 18 Issue 5, p55
Was able to read the first two online, they're both broad articles about the series as a whole. I couldn't glean anything of worth from either, which is a shame, as Time would have been a great source to use. Was unable to find the latter two though. I'm going to be heading up to the university library this week coming to research some things for another article so I'll see if I can find them with LexisNexis when I'm there. GRAPPLE X 22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made a go of it, but I couldn't actually decipher LexisNexis well enough to figure out how to use it for anything other than looking up legal precedents. :/ GRAPPLE X 10:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't much time to do any additional reviewing here. Very busy in RL. I don't think we're a hurry with this article, though. By the end of the week, I hope to get the points of the GA criteria written up here so that you know what is left to be done. AstroCog (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I've got a few things on the go at once so I'm in no rush. Just to add, though, I had a comb through JSTOR when I was at the library too, and couldn't find anything specific to the episode (though apparently either I've missed a LOT of phallic symbolism in the series, or someone's talking out their poop chute). GRAPPLE X 17:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand by Anderson saying he reversed the phonemes of the words was that he wasn't simply reading the words backwards ("ekil uoy mug taht") but reciting the individual sounds backwards ("kile ouy mug tath"). Not exactly a huge revelation but I figured it was worth adding. Dunno about the reliability/unreliability though - as an official DVD extra, I assumed it passed RS, as it's verifiable, never thought to look at how factual it was. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that an actor just can't reverse the words and say the sounds to get Lynch's effect. When a spoken phrase is played backwards, the sounds are quite different than that. It's the actual sounds heard in this case that are memorized and recited. It's not completely intuitive, so I'm not sure that I'm explaining it well. Again, I'll see if I can find a good source on it. AstroCog (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would be a good touch to compare how Anderson describes it to how others have done so, if there's more sources out there for it. I'll try searching for anything Sheryl Lee might have said on the matter, since she was the other one in the episode doing the same thing; failing that, sources on the second season finale might also mention it. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. AstroCog (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

On hold for now.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead needs to include a summary of the reception section. The writing needs to be tightened up. The background addition to the plot is a nice start, but I think it should be better, giving an unfamiliar reader more context. The Black Lodge stuff is, of course, fascinating to "Peak Freaks" such as myself, but it needs better contextual framing. A possible way to discuss it:"The Red Room seen in the episode's final scene was created from scratch by Lynch for the European release of the pilot, and was not originally intended to be a part of the American series. Lynch was so pleased with the result, that he decided to incorporate it into the regular series. Later in the series, the Red Room would be revealed as a waiting room for the Black Lodge, a mystical..." and so on. I don't think it's important to discuss the Black Lodge in the article's lead, since the name itself is not a major part of this episode - it's not even mentioned.
Expanded the lead with reception info. I've added your text to the Production section. What do you think needs to be explained better in the Background section? GRAPPLE X 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been brought up, so I will for curiosity: why are the main cast members listed in the guest stars section in the infobox? I've never seen this done before and find it odd. Technically, only the last four actors should be listed in there as they are the guest stars. I just spotted that when looking over this article and wanted to point it out as it hasn't been. Good luck with the GA! Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the size of the cast and the relative screen time they get as a result, I thought it might be a good idea to have a list of them somewhere and I'm not a fan of cast lists if they don't have real-world information (though that kind of thing belongs in the series or season articles, rather than a single episode), so I used the infobox. Is anyone opposed to it? GRAPPLE X 21:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are no problem here. I think they can be expanded, of course, per the more substantial dialogue we had in the Initial Thoughts section above.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Is it worth discussing the different versions of this episode available on DVD? I think there's 3 different versions. Not sure if there's enough to source this...
To be honest, this is the first time I've heard of that. Are you sure you're not thinking of the pilot? There's a few versions of that one, definitely. GRAPPLE X 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I mean different versions of the mastering. Artisan release versus Gold Box, etc. The colors are completely different, for example, and I wonder if that was discussed anywhere. Sorry, I didn't mean a different version of the script or production. AstroCog (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find anything about it online, or in a JSTOR search either. Not sure how to reference it otherwise since just a simple comparison of screencaps would be within the realms of OR. GRAPPLE X 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be OR, so don't worry about it.AstroCog (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problems.
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):
I think the caption in the Red Room image should not say it's the Black Lodge, because Cooper didn't know that or identify it as such during this episode. The image needs alt text, too. I think one or two more images would be good to have in this article. Perhaps an in-use WP image of Lynch in the production section. It might be worth risking another fair use screencap, such as during the rock throwing scene. This is arguably the most distinctive episode of the entire series, and sometimes describing it in words doesn't do it justice. Of course, just seeing a picture doesn't either... maybe I'm too close to this show...it's precious to me....
I've stuck in one of Lynch with a caption about the Red Room's conception. Does that look ok? GRAPPLE X 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't like the size and placement of the Lynch pic, since it now pushes into the next section. Would making it smaller help? Also, it needs alt text. Something like, "A smiling man, wearing a tuxedo." The infobox pic's alt text shouldn't reference the names of anybody. Be descriptive about the picture, briefly, but don't reference the people or characters in the pic. It's because alt text is for people using text readers like Lynx (don't laugh, I used to use it...) or blind readers. AstroCog (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the names would be alright as the plot summary puts them all into context but I've removed them since they seem to be unnecessary. I've added alt text to the Lynch picture, and moved it up a little. I've also reduced the caption and shrunk the image. It still reaches into the next section, but it does so much less intrusively. I like using that particular image as it's the only commons one of Lynch contemporary to the show's airing, as the others are all from at least 10 or more years later. GRAPPLE X 03:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Grapple X, hope you don't mind I updated your original upload of the infobox image with a new version. It's more clean and is higher quality (and also features the shadow in the background!), I'm just a stickler when it comes high image quality. Just wanted to let you know that personally and also say really great job on the article! Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually reduced the quality of the image when I created it for FUR reasons, but if the sharper image can be considered fair use then that's fine too. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 21:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to put the review on hold until the article can be fixed up some more. AstroCog (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking off hold. Things have been addressed. Of course, the article isn't perfect, but that's not what a GA review is looking for. Congratulations! I'm sorry it took so long to do the review, but I think some nice improvements were made. If you found the review helpful, please consider helping reviewing other GANs in need, such as this one. ;-) GRAPPLE, always a pleasure working with you. AstroCog (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]