Talk:Pilot (Devious Maids)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I shall review this soon, hopefully in the next few days. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

Firstly, starting out I see that you've put a lot of work into this article, for which I commend you! However, I do see multiple issues that could bar this article's promotion to GA status. It fails criterion 3 as it lacks production information. I've found in writing many television episode articles that this content can be difficult to find; pilots, however, are a different beast, as many media oulets report casting and writing info. I've googled for some content and am providing links here: [1] [2] [3] [4] (Highbeam links, not sure if you have access: [5] Longoria as EP [6])

Some of what you call production was already in the article as background. I will add some more and rename the section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added as much casting as I could find and the earliest filmiing citation that does not come from the shows own web site.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I also note little to no content about the significant controversy surrounding the series; this should be inputted into the article. Providing links here: [7] [8] [9] (Highbeam links, not sure if you have access: [10]). Feel free to leave a note here or on my talkpage once you've gotten to tackling the creation of a production section. I would review other episode GAs if you're looking for examples (such as this one I wrote last year). I'll return to add further comments then. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Text expanded in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, looks much better. I think it could be improved even further if it had something more about Cherry on the series, perhaps some quotes about why a white man is writing a series on Latina maids? I know there are some quotes floating around that would help.

If this show gets nominations for the Golden Globes or SAG awards (or maybe DGA or WGA), I will do Devious Maids (season 1). That type of content is more about why he tried to take on this series than this episode. I think that type of content would belong in a season 1 article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• The lead section seems a bit short, and should be expanded. It has nothing on the plot of the episode and the premise of the overall series. It also lacks reception information apart from the controversy surrounding the maids.
  • expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• The cast section is not needed for television episode articles. Typically guest stars are listed in the infobox and the main cast are linked in the plot section. I'm not convinced that this is enough to cite the cast anyway, as it says nothing about who the guest actors are. In my experience, you don't really need to cite the cast if they are in those two areas (example: Olivia (Fringe)).
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• The sentence about Cherry writing and McGuigan directing should be cited; I recommend using the {{Cite episode}} template
  • Cited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• I think the controversy paragraph could be amplified a bit; Longoria at least was reported to comment on it
  • I found the whole Longoria issue and added it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• "10PM time slot" -- I'm not sure this is needed here, but in case you would prefer to keep it: according to what time zone? Also, I'm not sure what "Viewership response to the pilot was increased ratings in subsequent weeks" is trying to say. Otherwise I like the ratings section. Good job providing enough context rather than just providing numbers.
  • Added time zone. It is fairly rare for a show's viewership to rise after its pilot episode. Thus, I pointed it out here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Picky citation things:

• Make sure there is consistency in your citation styles; I see that ref #1 uses firstname lastname, rather than lastname, first name

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also, use consistence date formatting

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wikilink all publishers with articles (or none)

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• DON'T SHOUT in the citation titles

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• The plot section seems un-encyclopedic at times, such as this: "We are introduced to Zoila and Valentina's employer, Genevieve Delatour (Susan Lucci) who is a bit of a psychological mess." A psychological mess is inherently subjective, and don't use the phrase "we are introduced".
  • I hope it is better now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the plot mention that Valentina is Zoila's daughter?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• What is this trying to say?: "Carmen (Roselyn Sanchez) is a new staff member for Latino music star Alejandro Rubio (Matt Cedeño) who she is trying to work for a start to her music career."
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• You don't need to provide the names of the actresses twice in one section (Sanchez for instance is mentioned twice).
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• The article could benefit from a picture or two. I know there are many free images of the actresses that could be used.
  • I added as many of the lead characters as I could find images for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite the above, I am confident that this can make it to GA status within the holding period. Please don't let my comments be discouraging; I just want this article to be the best it can be. I'll place the article on hold for seven days. Please respond here when you have finished, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, the article is really starting to look good. However, concerning the production section, I think the way you just list dates and then casting decisions fails criterion 1. it's no different than a list, and is hard on the eyes and a tad boring. What about the cast and crew's reactions to the series/their casting? I added in a PR statement from Lifetime on why they ordered it just to give some reasoning behind their actions, but I know there's more. Cherry for instance says that the series "deals with themes of racism, classism and immigration. These women all work in the homes of rich people, but they have goals and dreams that are much greater than the people they work for realize." That source also has a lot of good info on the individual characters. Or this news piece on why Brianna Brown was cast. This article discusses why Longoria joined as EP, and this is on Ana Ortiz. I found all of this with a basic Google search, so I know there's lots more out there. I would recommend you take some of the cast/crew's comments on the series and intersperse them with their casting announcements. Ruby 2010/2013 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Cherry quote is good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What is important here is that the leads were mostly cast in February and the supporting cast was mostly filled in in March. The story of how one role fits into the resume of a particular supporting cast member is not relevant to the story of this episode. It might not even be relevant to the story of the season. That article would go well in her own biography. I have dropped that link on her bio talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure how to incorporate Longoria's Chicano Studies Master's Degree. She obtained it in May 2013, but was hired in March 2012. We don't even know if she started the program before she was hired.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ortiz interview is very broad brush and more about season 2.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• In general, the types of interviews that you are pointing me to are really Devious Maids (season 1) type stories. None of them are about the pilot or the controversy of debuting this subject. I think they go in the season articles if not the general Devious Maids article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. If you look at other GAs of television pilots (Pilot (Glee), Pilot (The X-Files), Pilot (Fringe), Pilot (30 Rock), Pilot (Awake), Pilot (The Playboy Club)), they provide an overview of the series' early development. This includes content on writing, filming, and casting. Of course, there's going to be a lot of overlap between the production of this episode and the overall first season because of this, so this content should ideally be in both articles. I don't really see this particular article being broad in its coverage until this type of information is included, as these details are readily available in reliable sources. Ruby 2010/2013 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have incorporated 2 of the 3. The Ortiz one is really about season 2 and not season 1 episode 1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• The production section looks great, apart from one tag that I've added over a citation that needs to be resolved. Otherwise I'll give the article another quick overview, then probably pass it for GA. Great work so far. Ruby 2010/2013 02:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I said one or two images, not four! :) Perhaps consider employing the Template:Multiple image if you cannot decide what to trim? Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am using Template:Multiple image. Did you want the picture laid out horizontally?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I meant something closer to template:double image. Maybe have one set at the start of the production section and the other near the end? Ruby 2010/2013 03:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I saw that you made a lot of edits. I was looking for some subsequent comments here. What is going on with this nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies; I've been a bit busy of late and forgot to return here. I made a few spotchecks and only came across one sourcing issue that should be resolved before I pass this. You use this to cite "The show has been discussed as a spin off of Desperate Housewives although some sources disagree". However, the source actually says:

"Although it's not strictly a Housewives spin-off, Cherry's successful blend of camp dramedy makes you feel like Bree Van de Kamp may poke her sticky beak over a fence any moment..."

• You refer to multiple vague "sources", and need to add in a few more citations to support your claim (the current source says nothing about the series being "discussed" as a spin-off, for instance). In addition to adding a few more citations, you could change the sentence to "The show has been discussed as a potential spin-off of Desperate Housewives, though some media outlets disagree, believing the two to be unrelated..." Ruby 2010/2013 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good. There is one dablink but otherwise I am happy to pass this. Ruby 2010/2013 19:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)