Talk:The Kiss (Modern Family)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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):

   The prose is not at the standard required and needs a copyedit. The lead section needs more information on production.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Numerous small errors in citations affecting WP:V. On the whole, sources look reliable. Some don't back up what they claim to.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'd say major aspects are touched on, although I'd like to see more from the reivews that have been quoted, in some cases single quotes are used and miss the main points of the review. It stays focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   On the whole this is well-balanced, although using more of the reviews available might put a slightly different spin as some of them seemed to have a bit more of a negative spin regarding the kiss.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be stable with no apparent content disputes

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):

   The image used is free, from Commons and is appropriately licensed. The caption is not completely accurate.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Unfortunately, the prose is not at the standard required by WP:WIAGA. It's not "reasonably well written". The article is full of bad grammar and parts are very difficult to understand. I assume that the nominator has written this as well as they can and as the issues go beyond a few typos or awkward sentences, I believe it needs copyediting by someone else, which will take time. Additionally, there are many small errors in the referencing that need to be fixed. Those are the main problems with the article. I will list some examples below, but please don't consider this exhaustive. If you don't ask someone else to copyedit, I'd recommend peer review at the every least before a further GA nomination.

Examples of prose issues

• "episode also featured guest starred"
• "In the episode, after Claire ... finds flirty texts from a boy on Alex's phone, Claire tells Haley ... to give her advice, in which she tells Alex ... to kiss the boy, which makes her go up to the boy, and asks' him in front of his friends, embarrassing him, also Mitchell ... is having trouble kissing Cam ... in public." (note: all one sentence)
• "According to the Nielsen Media Research also received..."
• The whole plot section, as well as the plot details in the lead, could use dome context for readers unfamiliar with the show. I found it quite difficult to grasp what was going on.
• "She proceeds to run home and learns that is was Claire's idea for Haley to talk to Alex making her furious."
• "Not known to Jay, Gloria uses tricks to get revenge on Jay."
• "While shopping for a new shirt and being rejected a kiss..."
• "...his problem with Public Displays of Affection." - why capital letters?
• "Jay's response creates more evidence why Mitchell won't show PDA"
• "Abraham had previously worked..."
• "The episode will deal with some criticism..." - in the future?
• "The episode is set to re air October 1, 2010 ..." - in the future?
• "Alex states a quote..."
• ""The Kiss" received generally positive reviews from critics. Eric Stonestreet ... called the episode ..." - an actor from the episode does not count as a critic.
• "...naming "Phil squeal-gasped like a girl when Jay asked him for help with the printer." the best moment"
• "Matt Roush gave the episode a positive and praised..."

Referencing issues

Citation numbers refer to the references as I reviewed, in this version.

• No. 1 - appears to be from a press release, if so, that should be cited
• No. 2 - author name is wrong, the source doesn't appear to mention Abraham Higginbotham
• No. 3 - wrong date
• No. 4 - author name is wrong
• "The criticism spawned a Facebook campaign..." - this needs a citation
• No. 5 - article is from afterelton.com where you'll find the whole article, rather than an excerpt, and the author name. Also, it doesn't really back up what you're saying. This article says "It was also criticized by Ryan Murphy ... who called it "ridiculous"" According to the AE article, Murphy didn't actually name this episode; the article author just interpreted his comment to mean that. He may be right, but we can't say someone said something they didn't.
• No. 6 - this is marked as dead but it worked for me. it's not Entertainment Weekly, it's Hollywood Reporter. Also, it appears to have come from the Associated Press, which should be clear. Also, date is wrong.
• No. 8 - appears to be written by Rachael Maddux, not Alan Sepinwall. Also, the source doesn't really back up that sentence.
• No. 10 - says "11.918 million viewers", not "11.877 million viewers"
• No. 16 - date is wrong

While I'm on references, although this in not covered by WP:WIAGA, the references could be tidied up a little style-wise. The date formats are inconsistent and so are the use of italics or not. For example, magazine titles should be in italics. (This is especially obvious for something with a generic name like "New York", which could be a seen as a publishing location.) Note also, film titles (in the prose) should be in italics, not quotes.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this review. BelovedFreak 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)