Talk:Unearthed (Fringe)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 19:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this one. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 19:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1a (clear prose; grammar/spelling correct) and Criterion 1b (complies with layout, lead, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation)

Lead

"she suddenly coming back" --> "she suddenly comes back"

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"January 11, 2010 in a one-time timeslot." --> Should there be a comma after 2010?

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"giving it a 24 percent ratings improvement over its best ratings of the season." - I don't really understand what this is trying to say.

This was in the ref; I also wasn't entirely sure what the author meant, so I quoted her word for word here and in the reception section. Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"also panned guest" --> Could you replace "panned" with a more well-known synonym?

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"particularly when she pretended to" --> replace "pretended" with "pretends"

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Put a comma after "Kremelburg".
"Lisa, and clashes" -->"Lisa. Walter clashes"
"Rusk's energy was not completely expended." - Two comments -For the first, "was" should be "is." As for the second, this sentence isn't totally clear; can you clarify what energy Rusk expends?
"shows a car crash victim suddenly wake up" - Also two comments here - Is the car crash victim related to the actual case? This should be clarified. For my second comment, "wake up" should be "waking up."

All fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"Fox released a press release" --> Fox issued

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite it being filmed" --> Although it was filmed

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"which was a departure" - Strike "which was"

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Actor Joshua Jackson explained the move back in April 2009" - Strike "back"

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so if it went unexplained for some time, then did anyone ever explain why Acevedo did appear?

I think the issue was it went unexplained in the episode's promotions (i.e. commercials). I assume people read up on the episode and figured it out. I couldn't really find anything on precisely when viewers realized the episode was from season one, but hopefully it was soon after. :) Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Though the writers as well as the public were of course unaware" --> Though the writers and the public were unaware

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception (Reviews)

"been explored further" --> been further explored
" Fringe team, Massive Dynamics, Nina Sharpe" - I know that this is in a quote, but isn't Massive Dynamics supposed to be Massive Dynamic? If so, then {{sic}} should be used right after "Dynamics."

All fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2a (all info cited, set aside as inline citations in a ref section)

Reference 2 (The Blastr ref) could include the authors, which are stated to specifically report Ian Spelling and Fred Topel at the bottom of the article.

Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a side note and it isn't really relevant to the GA criteria, but are four refs necessary to cite Acevedo's appearance in the show? If you can, trim this one down a bit to one or two references.

The refs aren't precisely stating Acevedo appeared. Rather, they are a reference to some viewers' confusion that he appeared. Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2b (Controversial stuff cited)

There is a place in the lead where "unearthed" is quoted. Cite this little guy.

Good catch. I changed the wording and sourced it. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2c (No original research)

The relationship between Fringe's SEAL team six and the one that took Osama bin-Laden out should probably be removed. It seems kinda original-researchy.

Another user noticed this and I felt obligated to include it. But on second thought, I think removing it would be fine, as it's not really necessary. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3a (covers all major topics)

All good here. Knowing how thorough your articles are, if there had been awards and stuff, I'm sure you would've found them.

Criterion 3b (article is focused, no unnecessary detail)

This also seems good.

Criterion 4 (neutral; no undue weight)

All clear!

Criterion 5 (stable)

Looks like you've been the only one to work on this article. All clear here too.

Criterion 6a (all images have their papers in order)

This one's good.

Criterion 6b (Images relevant, have good captions)

Yep.

Overall comments

And another one's almost a pass. As always, just a few minor fixes, mostly with prose. Keep it up, Ruby. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, as always! :) Ruby2010 comment! 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :)

Anyways, I see this as one ready for the GA title. Congrats! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you very much! Ruby2010 comment! 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]