Talk:Leslie's House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I see you've written quite a few GA's, Hunter, so I imagine this will be a fairly painless process. My last two GA reviews were on topics relating to the World Wars, so a change of topic was needed for me... why I picked a show I have never watched, I'm not quite sure! I'll post a full review sometime today.

Okay, This isn't a review, just a glancing thought. Looking at the references section, you use dates in two different formats, "January 23, 2010." and "2009-11-16" Now I don't have a preference as to which you choose to use, but can these please pick a format and be consistent? Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking on the review! I've made the formatting consistent. Sorry about that! — Hunter Kahn 05:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really having trouble finding anything to point out as truly "wrong" with this article- my main concern is that the number of references (8) is somewhat low for an article this long. Further, what the blog "TV by the Numbers" a reliable source? Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can understand your concern about the number of sources, but I honestly don't believe there are any reliable sources I'm neglecting. Keep in mind too that as per WP:MOSTV, the plot summary doesn't require a source because the episode itself serves as a primary source, so only the other sections require sources, and I'd argue the article has the appropriate number of sources once you take those proportions into account. I'm sure the number of sources might cause an issue if I were to nominate this for WP:FAC, but as for GAN, the burden is to cover all the broad aspects of the subject, which I feel this article does. As for TV by the Numbers, it's been discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard before here. As that discussion points out, it's listed as a source by the New York Times and if it's good enough for them, I'd say it's good enough for Wikipedia. Also, as that discussion points out, it's been cited by several other major mainstream publications. It's truly the best possible resource out there for Nielsen ratings info, and I think it's fair to call it a reliable source... — Hunter Kahn 04:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that MOSTV doesn't require sourcing for the plot- and I actually am fine with that. My experiences with TVBTN is that they get things wrong with regularity, their commenters calling them on it, eventually leading to accurate content. Consider me satisfied on that point. I've tried to look for a few more sources, and I'm generally striking out- which leads me to believe you're right about covering everything available. Now, where the article says ""Leslie's House" was seen by 4.35 million households,"; I believe that should be "viewers", not "households" as TVBTN labels the column the number is pulled from?
• It appears you are right about the households thing. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated: In the production section; ""Leslie's House" was written by Daniel J. Goor and directed by Alex Hardcastle. It featured one of a string of slated guest appearances by Justin Theroux as Justin, a love interest for Leslie. in the [1][2] The episode" What happened at the end of that sentence? I'll come back to the above in 5-10 minutes, was re-reading the article to reply and saw this. Courcelles (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like this was just a typo. Sometimes I copy-and-paste phrases from other P&R episodes so the wording will be similar and consistent, and in fixing the sentences up I leave behind a few words or phrases by accident. I think that happened here. — Hunter Kahn 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Off on another point, the reception section has tow paragraphs; the first is the Nielsen ratings, then Sepinwall's review. The second paragraph then begins with "The episode receives generally positive reviews." Wouldn't it make more sense to have that sentence before Sepinwall's review? (Also, should that be present tense? The same sentence, in the lead, is in past tense- of course, finding a separate way to say the same thing might be even better)

• You are right, the sentence was in the wrong place, and had the wrong tense. I actually purposely meant for it to be the exact same wording as the lead. Whereas within the content of the article, I avoid such similar sentences to prevent redundancy, I actually try to repeat the same sentences where I can between the lead and the article, because I think the lead should be a summary of the article, and I think it creates connections between that portion of the lead and that portion of the article, and creates a sort of sense of form. (If that makes any sense at all. lol) — Hunter Kahn 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The image in the infobox needs alt text

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The last review seems to be drawing a direct parallel to Dinner Party (The Office) from this episode. Perhaps that should be mentioned?

• I've taken a crack at this. Let me know how it looks to you. — Hunter Kahn 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(I should stop reading the article, because at least two of those sound nit-picky to me!) Courcelles (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. I'll go do the paperwork; you've got GA on this one. Courcelles (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)