Jump to content

Talk:The Man from the Other Side

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Man from the Other Side 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.
Good topic starThe Man from the Other Side is part of the Fringe (season 2) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 30, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I clicked on this expecting it to be The Man from Another Place... Little disappointed, but I won't hold it against you.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    It feels a little bare, to be honest. It's well written, but it reads as though I should already know a lot of what's being mentioned. The lead should probably expand slightly more on what the "two universes" are (just briefly), perhaps using a link to Fringe_(TV_series)#The_parallel_universe, which I would also link to instead of Parallel universe (fiction). I also think you should mention what "Massive Dynamic" is, as well as mentioning the principle actors in the lead - for example, when you mention "the Fringe team", perhaps instead use "the Fringe team's Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) and Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson)". I'm assuming those are the lead roles, though I could be wrong.
I hope I've addressed your concerns. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS compliance is fine. I'd move the lesson plan stuff from "Production" to "Reception", though, as it seems to be a result of the episode rather than an aspect of its creation.
Done Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Sources are fine, used well and support everything they need to.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    I'm feeling there could maybe be more in that production section. Is there any information, for instance, on where it was filmed or the like? Not a major problem if there isn't. DVDs usually have some degree of this tucked away somewhere or other, if you have a copy of it. Don't worry if you don't, though.
I am painfully aware the production section is too short. However, I've looked literally everywhere for information (websites, interviews, DVD special features etc), and have come up empty. As you can see here, I've expanded all of the season 2 episodes. "The Man from the Other Side" was the last to be nominated, simply because I couldn't find enough information. I must conclude then that there simply isn't anything out there, and that the article is as complete as it will ever be. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    Stays on focus perfectly.
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutrality is fine.
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stability is fine.
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    No images, so they aren't incorrectly used. However, File:Sebastian Roche.jpg is a commons image, perhaps it could be slotted in with a caption mentioning his guest star appearance; or File:Joshua Jackson by Gage Skidmore.jpg could be used with a caption about his character being revealed to be from the alternate dimension? Either would work.
I've added the Roche image. I've been looking for a suitable image of that man for ages! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Going to put this on hold for now, as there's a few things that could be addressed. The production information would be a very low priority as it might to difficult to get a hold of anything, but firing in a commons image to give it something to look at, and explaining the plot and lead a wee bit better for the uneducated would both make this article good enough to pass.
Thank you for the great review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks again, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look, and yep, everything's in order. If the production information is unavailable, that's unavoidable and shouldn't stop the promotion, as it's as in-depth as it can possibly be. I'm passing this as a Good Article in light of the fixes. Well done on another one! GRAPPLE X 16:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sebastian Roche.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Sebastian Roche.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

problem in the plot of the episode

[edit]

FBI agent gets atomized while Peter remains undisturbed in one place. Peter grew up in whatever universe he is in. Every part of his body renewed every atom 2-3 times over. He has stopped being a part his birth universe a really long time ago. It stands to reason that he should have died with the FBI agent.

Piss poor performance on the writers, and scientific advisers part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.73.69 (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Man from the Other Side. 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) 02:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Man from the Other Side. 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) 23:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Man_from_the_Other_Side&oldid=1217226979"