Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I will review this next. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Main Review
editInfobox
edit- Very Good Infobox
The infobox is very well laid out. It displays the key points of the article and it is well presented. The infobox colour is relevant to the image. The cast are listed using {{plainlist|... Altogether this is a very good section very will displayed. 
Opening Paragraph
edit- Too Long
Although well written, this section is too long. The opening paragraph does not go into too much detail. It should just address the key facts. Like network, air date, # of episodes ect. Cast list and plot lines should not be listed here.
- I have cut some of it down, but we do want to keep such things as the main cast just as we do in our film articles and have done for our other TV season articles. It is still a brief overview, also mentioning the MCU connections which we then expand upon further down the page, and I think we decided that when we didn't have this information, we weren't summarising the article well enough in the lead. Perhaps see the lead of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1), which is a GA already, for what our template is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Due to MOS:TV there opening paragraphs have to be short. If you want you can create a premise/plot section. The cast are already mentioned in their own section below and in the infobox. There is no need for them to be mentioned a third time. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 22:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The way I am reading WP:TVLEAD, which is already difficult to apply here since it really only talks about series articles rather than season articles, is that "The subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique." refers to what is allowed/required in second or third paragraphs in the lead, which is basically what we have done here. I understand that other series/season articles may not do it like this, but we try to remain consistent within our articles, and I feel that we are still following the MOS with this format. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: The MOS does state that it needs to be short the opening paragraph if you read it carefully. A lot of the the things you mentioned can be summarized in a short space if done correctly. See other shows article for inspiration. Unfortunately I don't watch the show so I am not sharp on my knowledge which means I can't do it myself. Overall acc. to the MOS the opening paragraph needs to be short (4-5 lines). Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion here as to what you mean by "opening paragraph". Per the MOS, the lead, which summarises the entire article, can consist of several paragraphs, the first of which "should serve both as a quick introduction to the television show and a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline. For television articles, the first paragraph, or the opening paragraph if you wish, should be a basic overview, as you say ("The lead paragraphs of an article should serve both as a quick introduction to the television show and a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline. For television articles, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the show, such as when the show first premiered, country, setting, genre(s), who created/developed the show, primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode)."). This is basically what we have, and we have it in 4-5 lines as you have asked. Then, the rest of the article (so the cast section, production, reception, etc.) is summarised in subsequent paragraphs ("The subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique."). We have done this also. I cannot see how we have not followed the MOS exactly, and am at a loss as to how to proceed given that this is how we do this for every MCU film, series, season, and episode article, many of which are already GAs. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: The lead paragraph can summarize those points quickly without going into too much detail. E.G. The Simpsons
- There seems to be some confusion here as to what you mean by "opening paragraph". Per the MOS, the lead, which summarises the entire article, can consist of several paragraphs, the first of which "should serve both as a quick introduction to the television show and a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline. For television articles, the first paragraph, or the opening paragraph if you wish, should be a basic overview, as you say ("The lead paragraphs of an article should serve both as a quick introduction to the television show and a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline. For television articles, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the show, such as when the show first premiered, country, setting, genre(s), who created/developed the show, primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode)."). This is basically what we have, and we have it in 4-5 lines as you have asked. Then, the rest of the article (so the cast section, production, reception, etc.) is summarised in subsequent paragraphs ("The subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique."). We have done this also. I cannot see how we have not followed the MOS exactly, and am at a loss as to how to proceed given that this is how we do this for every MCU film, series, season, and episode article, many of which are already GAs. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: The MOS does state that it needs to be short the opening paragraph if you read it carefully. A lot of the the things you mentioned can be summarized in a short space if done correctly. See other shows article for inspiration. Unfortunately I don't watch the show so I am not sharp on my knowledge which means I can't do it myself. Overall acc. to the MOS the opening paragraph needs to be short (4-5 lines). Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The way I am reading WP:TVLEAD, which is already difficult to apply here since it really only talks about series articles rather than season articles, is that "The subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique." refers to what is allowed/required in second or third paragraphs in the lead, which is basically what we have done here. I understand that other series/season articles may not do it like this, but we try to remain consistent within our articles, and I feel that we are still following the MOS with this format. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Due to MOS:TV there opening paragraphs have to be short. If you want you can create a premise/plot section. The cast are already mentioned in their own section below and in the infobox. There is no need for them to be mentioned a third time. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 22:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company. It is a satirical parody of the middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its titular family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. The show is set in the fictional town of Springfield, and it lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself.
- That lists the creator, network, genere/style, main characters, setting, a brief note. That is all that is needed. Thanks :) -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- To chime in, since I also contribute to this article, though not as significantly as adamstorm.97 or Favre1fan93, I fail to see how the lead is "too long". The article is very in-depth, so a lead that is just around 300 words seems completely acceptable; it summarizes the article. You say not to include cast and plot, yet that's in the MOS. The plot in the lead is merely a single sentence, "revolves around the character of Phil Coulson and his team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and allies, who attempt to rebuild the organization following its collapse by the infiltration of the terrorist organization Hydra." It's not a sprawling paragraph, it's a very basic description of the series, which is completely in line with the MOS. The lead is perfectly written as far I believe. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) is already a GA, and is set up the exact same way. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Drovethrughosts:Sorry I should have been a bit clearer, when I say not to include plot I meant do not go in depth with plot. That is what a plot section is for. By all means Summarize the main plot in 2-3 sentences but not a big paragraph. The main point of the lead paragraph is to give a quick overview of the article if someone wants brief information. The rest of the article is where it goes in depth. That is the most important part of the lead paragraph, it needs to be engaging too the reader in order to entice them into reading the rest of the article. Not to scare them away with a big jumbo lead paragraph. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 10:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Episodes
edit- Well Referenced
This section is well referenced (and full citations) to reliable sources.
- Well written
Very well written, contains good spelling and grammar thought.
- Summaries are correct size
The episode summaries are a good size. They explain the contents of the episode whilst still being around the recommended 250 word mark.
- Too Early
I'm not sure if this is too early in the article to contain this section. To avoid clashes with the infobox when the opening paragraph is shortened, maybe include a plot or premise section. To give the overall view of the season.
- We decided that we don't want to have duplicate plot summaries like some other pages tend to do, and so at all of our season pages have used the episodes section the same way that we would a plot summary in a film article. If the infobox ever becomes an issue with the table, which has happened before, we tend to just use {{-}} to move the episode table down. It creates a bit of whitespace, but we feel that is preferable to creating a redundant premise section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: I personally would not recommend that at all. The plot section was invented for a reason. This is to give an encyclopedic overview of the entire season. The episode summaries are to know what happened in each episode. The big white space we try to avoid if at all possible. I strongly encourage if you to include a plot section for the season. This is something I have noticed whilst doing my review. The season overall plot summary is very essential and I am curious as to what discussion this was to remove it, and what excuse you used. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- JohnGormley, a premise section is not really needed, as I've not seen any live-action season articles that are GA include them. In response also to you above, that was the intent of its inclusion in the lead, as that is the "episode summary" part of the lead. As for the order, Adam has a very valid point, that it is a quasi-film article "plot" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, the episode plots replace or negate the premise summary as a section, so including it in the body of the article would be duplicate info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Probably won't change much, but the first season is already a Good Article and follows the same structure as this one. So the episode table being used where it is seems fine.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ditto51: I am aware the first one is a Good Article, just as I was reviewing this I pointed out my opinions on what I feel should be changed. After all this is a talk page. I am just giving suggestions and not reverting anything. These are just my opinions. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 10:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Probably won't change much, but the first season is already a Good Article and follows the same structure as this one. So the episode table being used where it is seems fine.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: I personally would not recommend that at all. The plot section was invented for a reason. This is to give an encyclopedic overview of the entire season. The episode summaries are to know what happened in each episode. The big white space we try to avoid if at all possible. I strongly encourage if you to include a plot section for the season. This is something I have noticed whilst doing my review. The season overall plot summary is very essential and I am curious as to what discussion this was to remove it, and what excuse you used. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Cast and characters
editVery Good
This is an excellent section. Well done here! It is all extremely well referenced to reliable sources. The three columns are presented very well. They do not take up too much space so easy to read. The characters are linked correctly avoiding redlinks when necessary. This is a very good section.
Production
editWell Referenced
This section is fully cited throughout to reliable sources. All necessary information is correctly sourced.
Very Detailed
This section goes extremely in dept into the background of the series. It contains encyclopedic contents on the series and explained well. This section checks all the boxes for what is expected off of this section.
Well Written
The entire section is well written. I could not come across any spelling or grammar errors. It features the quote marks (“...”) when necessary. This is a great section and features pictures for an encyclopedic purpose.
Release
editWell referenced
As is with the whole article, this section still stands up to the standards of the rest. Very well referenced as per usual.
Well Presented
This is well presented, with the block quote in the broadcast part of this section. The motion poster looks good and a nice feature in the section.
Well written
As above this is very well detailed and written. Good job.
Reception
editRatings
editWell presented
This is good neat grid that shows the essential information
Well Referenced
As always this is well referenced again.
Critical Response
editGood Variety
There is a good variety of critic reviews form various publishers. Rather than just having 1 or 2 reviews. It is very extensive and well written.
Accolades
editGood Section
Overall Review
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A.Yes this article is very well written with good spelling and grammar.
- B. The majority of the layout is correct. There is discussion currently taking place about the lead paragraph
- A.Yes this article is very well written with good spelling and grammar.
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- AYes the whole article is very well referenced, and correctly referenced.
- B. All references are to reliable sources.
- C. Contains no original research.
- AYes the whole article is very well referenced, and correctly referenced.
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Yes. It addresses the main aspects of the topic
- B.Yes all information is valid to the article.
- A. Yes. It addresses the main aspects of the topic
- Is it neutral?
- Yes article is not biased it contains neutral point of view
- Yes article is not biased it contains neutral point of view
- Is it stable?
- Yes article is stable
- Yes article is stable
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged
- B. Images are relevant to the topic
- A. Images are tagged
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Despite the minor issue over the lead paragraph. This is an excellent article. I have no doubt in my mind not to pass this. It is all extremely well sourced and written. Well done to all the frequent contributors to this article as you have done a great job in this. Thank you for you're patience whilst I was reviewing this, I was very busy yesterday apologies for the delay. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for this John, I know we can be quite passionate about these articles, but this is still an encyclopaedia and our goal is always to make the best encyclopaedia articles possible. We won't ignore your suggestions and comments, and appreciate all the praise you have given this article, which we have worked so hard on. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- No prob. You're hard work and other contributors hard work are what keep Wikipedia going. Thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for this John, I know we can be quite passionate about these articles, but this is still an encyclopaedia and our goal is always to make the best encyclopaedia articles possible. We won't ignore your suggestions and comments, and appreciate all the praise you have given this article, which we have worked so hard on. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Despite the minor issue over the lead paragraph. This is an excellent article. I have no doubt in my mind not to pass this. It is all extremely well sourced and written. Well done to all the frequent contributors to this article as you have done a great job in this. Thank you for you're patience whilst I was reviewing this, I was very busy yesterday apologies for the delay. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)