This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
"that Ben has encountered previously and had been injured by his friends a few days prior" – Not sure about the grammar in the second half, would it be "that Ben has encountered previously, having been injured by his friends a few days prior"? Or is a different meaning intended?
"and Tiff (Stephanie Beatriz). a trio of hunters" – Should be a period, I think, but then the sentence has quite a few clauses so might benefit from being split in two.
"In separate interviews" – Not sure the emphasis of "separate" is really needed (not exactly a coincidence that someone says the same thing twice when asked the same question, though good that it's true so we know it's not an "off the top of my head" that's not quite accurate).
"a character that was presumably killed in the first season's finale" – Who's doing the presumption here? Is this the audience assuming they were dead, or the writers thinking they'd leave him dead?
"The choice of developing the character in a single episode" (in the caption) – This made it sound to me like Ben appears in this episode and no other episodes. As it is I'm not too sure–he appeared in season one but this is his only season two appearance? Can you find a way to reword this?
I don't think you can say ComicBook.com is a review or use it in Reception as it's primarily an interview, which doesn't have the same editorial independence as reviews and so the praise is not that meaningful. For instance, I don't think I've ever seen an interview which says "this episode/season/work was pointless", whereas I've seen that as an opinion in reviews. They don't have the same freedom to dissent.
All these website names should be in italics, both in the refs and in prose, I'm pretty sure. The idea is that the article may not use italics if it's referring to the company/platform, but when saying the name as the publication originated information, we use italics.
Some editors do not like the use of screenshots from episodes as infobox images, but I believe the fair use rationale fully meets the
NFCCP so I'm happy with it.
All issues have indeed been fixed. A search for more sources doesn't turn up anything, so I'm satisfied with broadness (and focus—detail given to the show more generally is enough for context but not too much). No stability or neutrality concerns, addressed image usage above. Prose is good now. I've checked most of the sources and can't find any verifiability issues; no copyvio. So that's a pass for GA. Thanks to both of you for the quick responses. —
Bilorv (talk)
14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, I know this is a good article and this might sound controversial, but there’s no reason to make an article just for a single episode. What is this, Fandom? Why just one? Why? --
Inaturlist Lover (
talk)
12:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The definition of notability is that the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article has that coverage, as seen in the many references at the bottom of the page. That's why it has Good Article status. Your personal opinion does not overrule the consensus arrived at by other editors.
Toughpigs (
talk)
01:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a reason to create articles for other episodes, not to penalize the article that exists. The basic fact is that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore this topic is notable.
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
"that Ben has encountered previously and had been injured by his friends a few days prior" – Not sure about the grammar in the second half, would it be "that Ben has encountered previously, having been injured by his friends a few days prior"? Or is a different meaning intended?
"and Tiff (Stephanie Beatriz). a trio of hunters" – Should be a period, I think, but then the sentence has quite a few clauses so might benefit from being split in two.
"In separate interviews" – Not sure the emphasis of "separate" is really needed (not exactly a coincidence that someone says the same thing twice when asked the same question, though good that it's true so we know it's not an "off the top of my head" that's not quite accurate).
"a character that was presumably killed in the first season's finale" – Who's doing the presumption here? Is this the audience assuming they were dead, or the writers thinking they'd leave him dead?
"The choice of developing the character in a single episode" (in the caption) – This made it sound to me like Ben appears in this episode and no other episodes. As it is I'm not too sure–he appeared in season one but this is his only season two appearance? Can you find a way to reword this?
I don't think you can say ComicBook.com is a review or use it in Reception as it's primarily an interview, which doesn't have the same editorial independence as reviews and so the praise is not that meaningful. For instance, I don't think I've ever seen an interview which says "this episode/season/work was pointless", whereas I've seen that as an opinion in reviews. They don't have the same freedom to dissent.
All these website names should be in italics, both in the refs and in prose, I'm pretty sure. The idea is that the article may not use italics if it's referring to the company/platform, but when saying the name as the publication originated information, we use italics.
Some editors do not like the use of screenshots from episodes as infobox images, but I believe the fair use rationale fully meets the
NFCCP so I'm happy with it.
All issues have indeed been fixed. A search for more sources doesn't turn up anything, so I'm satisfied with broadness (and focus—detail given to the show more generally is enough for context but not too much). No stability or neutrality concerns, addressed image usage above. Prose is good now. I've checked most of the sources and can't find any verifiability issues; no copyvio. So that's a pass for GA. Thanks to both of you for the quick responses. —
Bilorv (talk)
14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, I know this is a good article and this might sound controversial, but there’s no reason to make an article just for a single episode. What is this, Fandom? Why just one? Why? --
Inaturlist Lover (
talk)
12:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The definition of notability is that the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article has that coverage, as seen in the many references at the bottom of the page. That's why it has Good Article status. Your personal opinion does not overrule the consensus arrived at by other editors.
Toughpigs (
talk)
01:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a reason to create articles for other episodes, not to penalize the article that exists. The basic fact is that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore this topic is notable.
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply