Talk:It's Alive! (Dexter)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Very nice job. I have a very small amount of suggestions...

Under Plot:

  • In the first sentence where you talk about Debra exercising incessantly and being barely able to sleep, could you mention that its because of the whole Ice Truck Killer thing? You mention later in the paragraph that she was his fiancee, but by not mentioning it in the beginning of the paragraph it's not clear that she's staying with Dexter and exercising obsessively because she's trying to cope with that situation.

Under Production:

  • Maybe it's worth mentioning something about Michael C. Hall's comments on Dexter and his frame of mind in this episode from this source: "" Talking about where Dexter is as Season 2 begins, star Michael C. Hall said, "I think his world is pretty rocked. He encountered [his brother], a person he never anticipated encountering, someone who sees him for who he is, accepts him as such, and he really has no choice but to do him in. And so, I think when we meet Dexter at the top of Season 2, he's still reeling from that, and any footing he's able to establish for himself is pretty much immediately pulled out from under him." ""

Under Reception:

  • Could you mention in here, as per this source, that the 1.09 viewers for this episode was a 67% improvement over the series launch and 40% above its season one average?
  • It might be worth mentioning from this review that the reviewer felt the scenes involving the Laguerta/Pasquale storyline seems a bit contrived. The reviews mentioned are a bit heavy on the positives and less so on the negatives.

-- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all of your concerns. —97198 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

  1. Well-written: Prose, grammar and manual of style guidelines are fine.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage: Addresses main aspects of topic, no unnecessary detail.
  4. Neutral: Yes
  5. Stable: Yes
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes

Nice job. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. :) —97198 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)