Talk:Ten Sessions/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Will review soon (will be busy over next several days, but I should have enough time to conduct this review). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No dab links or external link issues

"...and Spear's performance..." -> Spears' performance
"...but Ted doesn't realize..." -> does not (don't use contractions; look for others)
What are AMA rules?

~~✗ Not done Ruby 2010/2013 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Spears image is distracting, and does nothing to add to the article (too theatrical for an article that talks about her acting). There are probably other Spears images you can use
10.64 or 10.62 million households?

✗ Not done (still difference between what lead and reception sections say) Ruby 2010/2013 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

___ said....___ said (too much repetition here; switch it up)
switch the IGN and AV Club reviews (because of your use of "in contrast")
"Similarly, "Ten Sessions" was well-received by television critics" -> Similarly, "Ten Sessions" as a whole...
Careful with your use of quotation marks (" vs ' as in IGN's review); see WP:LQ for more info

✗ Not done (see second part of Bowman quotes) Ruby 2010/2013 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unitalicize MSBNC, IGN, MTV, Fox News, Seen On! Auction,
What makes this a reliable source?

~~More to come Ruby 2010/2013 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)~~ Review is now finished. I'll place it on hold for seven days while the above comments get addressed. Please respond here when you have finished. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issues. Should be good now. :) —DAP388 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few above have not yet been fixed (I also made a few changes to article myself). Ruby 2010/2013 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, silly me. LOL, now it should be set to go. —DAP388 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disparity in viewers is still not fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is the Bowman quote. See: She expressed: "the timing wasn't spot-on all the way through "Ten Sessions". The episode was slow starting, and as with many of the series' "Ted is a master of romance" attempts, the two-minute date seemed as likely to be annoying-quirky as endearing-quirky, if you were the one being wooed. I wanted to like it more than I did. Maybe it almost works because Elliot on Scrubs would have really liked it, ditzy romantic that she is. But no — it's just an ounce heavy on the trying-too-hard scale." Ruby 2010/2013 14:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about series'? —DAP388 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As I indicated above, you can't have a quote with " and " inside it. It should be "she saw 'the episode' today". Not "she saw "the episode" today"

OK, I think I got it this time. —DAP388 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, at last. Pass for GA. Ruby 2010/2013 03:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]