Talk:Remedial Chaos Theory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "The episode overall received critical acclaim" — "overall" feels slightly awkward in the middle like that. Perhaps just remove it?
• "It has been described as one of the best episodes of 2011 or of the 2010s" — Dropping the second "of", would "and" or "as well as" instead of "or" be better suited? → "It has been described as one of the best episodes of 2011 and the 2010s" or "It has been described as one of the best episodes of 2011, as well as the 2010s".
  • Yep, chose the former. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Plot

• It is common for films and songs to be written as Interstellar (2014). I do not believe that is required for Raiders of the Lost Ark as the content is about its boulder diorama, however I believe "Roxanne" should be written with (1978) at its first mention.
  • Yeah I think this is acceptable either way, but I've got no objections so I've added the year to "Roxanne". — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• "When Shirley leaves, the group let her pies burn, so she insults them and exits." — It was a bit confusing to me until I read ahead. As I read, it seems like Shirley had left (the party) and then the pies get burnt, but then it is mentioned that she insults them before exiting. Maybe just add "leaves to get pizza" or something similar?
  • Yes, this is one of the reasons it's good to get the opinion of another person—I would have never noticed this, but it is confusing so I've replaced "leaves" with "gets pizza". — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Production

• "The episode marks the first directing credit of the show for Jeff Melman." — I couldn't verify this from other sources, so please add a citation.
  • I can't find a source for it, so I've just said: "The episode was directed by Jeff Melman." (Implicit primary source is the work itself.) It actually appears to be Melman's only directing work on Community, but I'm basing that off the unreliable IMDb. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Chang" — Write the actor's name in brackets perhaps, since its the first mention of the charaacter.
• Unlink — "Roxanne" as it is linked in the section above.

Themes

• "Pierce being jealous at Abed for Troy moving to live with him." — It is worth mentioning why he gets jealous (Troy moves out).
  • Yeah that was supposed to be implied by the wording but hopefully this is more explicit: Pierce being jealous that Troy moves out of his mansion to live with Abed. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• "One critic opined that" — Perhaps it would be better to mention who the critic was instead, like done in the next paragraph: "David Mello of Screen Rant reported".

Reception

Critical reviews

• "Whilst critical reception to the first three episodes of season three were generally lukewarm" — Minor point but "three" gets repeated twice. Perhaps "Whilst critical reception to the first three episodes of the season were generally lukewarm" would flow better.
• Link — "Emily VanDerWerff", "Ken Tucker", "Alan Sepinwall", and "James Poniewozik" .
• Unlink — "IGN" when linked for the second time.

References

• Optional — And a minor point but a few publishers, works and websites are linked repeatedly. They should only be linked on their first appearance.
  • This is an exception to MOS:REPEATLINK, so it's a stylistic choice. I prefer linking everywhere, because when citations are reordered or sentences or paragraphs shuffled around, you don't need to change which references have links in their parameters. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Reference 4 — Can have a "title" parameter.
  • Now: ... |title=Fine, we're geniuses but not EVIL geniuses. |work=Dan Harmon Poops |publisher=[[Tumblr]] ... — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Reference 8 — "HitFlix" should be in "publisher".
• Reference 18 and 19 — "Den of Geek" should be in "publisher".
  • If you're basing these two on the lack of italics in their articles, I don't quite know what goes on there (it could be a mistake or referring to the company rather than website), but here I'm using them as the names of the website, so it's no different to The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly etc. in needing italics. However, I notice that there was some inconsistency and some refs missing a name, so I've done some tidying up. All website names should be in italics, I believe. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Reference 24 — Should have "Entertainment Weekly" in "work" instead of "EW.com" in "publisher".
• Reference 37 — Should use MMDDYYYY as format.

General

• I found these two pages where a lot of sentences match the article's phrasing. However, I suspect it is the pages that use the article's content and not the other way around.
  • Yeah they definitely are - I do not know what those sites are but I have to suspect that they are not safe to visit. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That will be all for now. It is a well-written article and should pass. Thank you for your work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed all these comments, I think, and replied to some of them. Thanks for taking the time to review this carefully! — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The fine quality of this article fittingly matches that of the acclaimed episode. You have done a great job in writing it. Thank you for your efforts! — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)