Talk:Mr. Monk Gets a New Shrink

Mr. Monk Gets a New Shrink 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.
Review: August 4, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mr. Monk Gets a New Shrink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fulfilling the previously mentioned QPQ. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is a vacuum bag?
"alibi that checks out" informal
"Merrigan is carrying a milk carton…" repetition of Merrigan in that sentence
"To Stottlemeyer and Disher one of Dr. Kroger's patients is the responsible." Is this sentence incomplete? Or is it that they think one of Dr. Kroger's patients is responsible? That they know that one of his patients is responsible?
Who recognizes the rock? Dr. Kroger? Monk?
You don't need to hyperlink Kroger, Monk, and Teeger and their respective actors in the plot section--they are already linked in the lead.
Do you mean "in Merrigan's office"?
"Suddenly, Merrigan appears, ties them to chairs, and loads" not "Suddenly, Merrigan appears, tie them to chairs, and load"
The plot is slightly over the guideline, but it's only by seven words, so it's not a big deal.
"The problem was, they…" should probably be "The writers' problem was that they…"
Instead of "this, however, seemed very gruesome", perhaps "the writers saw this possibility as too gruesome for the show."
What do you mean by "do the job with a cleaning lady"?
"here it seemed absolutely necessary…" Add: "…if they wanted an episode to have a realistic plot that featured a maid."
You repeat the phrase "cleaning lady" a lot—you can use that sometimes, but also use "maid" or "housemaid".
I copyedited that para a bit.
"This led to further complications…" add: "...in the writing process."
What do you mean by "clinical detachment"?
"Another major challenge" is more formal than "another big challenge"
In English, the word "shrink" is very informal and slightly pejorative--I know it's in the title, but use the word "psychiatrist" when writing in the encyclopedia's voice.
Parallelism: "a bout of scream therapy" isn't a descriptive of a psychiatrist--maybe "someone who would give Monk scream therapy"
It should be "a TV Guide contributor" not "a TV Guide's contributor"
Looking at the TV Guide source, it might be nice to include the quote from Kamel about getting a centric episode for his character in the production section.
You could probably use another sentence or two on the IGN review.
Just to flesh things out, list who Shalhoub lost to and for what show and episode (like I did with "Normal Is the Watchword"?)

@Gabriel Yuji: I'm done. Minor points before I can pass. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit I hopefully did almost everything. I though it was a common term but I've linked vacuum bag and added an image. I don't know why you removed "and if he did, she would never be good enough for him" but I added it again; I felt it was a little awkard, though, so I clarified it. "Clinical detachment" is, in summary, to be impersonal in treatment (examples [1], [2]). I don't know about Kamel interview. Are you referring to "I felt fortunate..."? If yes, I don't think emotional stuff helps the reader to understand how it was produced. About IGN I really don't know; I read it several times but I didn't feel this way. What are suggesting specifically? The Emmy part was a good ideia (and while searching for sources I ended up finding more stuff for reception; great!). Many thanks for the review, BenLinus1214! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are great improvements! I can see how that quote isn't really relevant, so Pass. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: