Have done alot of work on this article. I'm seeing if this is FA or GA level. -- Twlighter 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Object maybe GA material, but isn't FA material, the article is fairly short, and becomes a bit listy near the end, the lead is fairly poor as well, better than almost all episote articles though
Pilot (House) is the best one that I could think of, use that as a example. Thanks.
Jaranda
wat's sup
04:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was really looking for a guideline, so I had to make something up .-- Twlighter 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding episode reviews: While I can't access one of the sources linked there, the other two (NYT and Boston Globe) don't appear to give any numerical value to their reviews, even though the article claims that. Did you get these numbers off Metacritic? They are probably just rough attempts to assign a numerical value to the basic judgment of the review.
Everyking
09:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I got those off Metacritic, but it is reliable? --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, I think Metacritic is making its own rough estimate in numerical terms of what the review is saying. I don't think you should use the numbers in that case because they aren't from the actual sources. The sources didn't actually give those numbers; some other source interpreted the reviews and assigned a number. Everyking 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I got those off Metacritic, but it is reliable? --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Regarding the references, it's usually better to give the number of the "chapter and verse " rather than quoting them in full. Just give the name of the DVD/VHS the episode appeared on, and if you want to be really precise follow up with the time into the episode at which the comment was made. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 11:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)/
- Comment: suggest rm from here, act on suggestions, and submit at WP:GAC. Rlevse 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment doesn't contain a section detailing the production of the episode, and the headings don't conform to
WP:MOS
Jay32183
22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to do this, but there were virtually no sources, which is bad for a article. --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's the typical problem with these kinds of articles. DVD commentary makes it easier, but this can be really hard. Unfortunately, this information is needed to make the comprehensiveness requirement. Jay32183 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to do this, but there were virtually no sources, which is bad for a article. --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be closing this down, becase it's apparaent the futherist this article can go is GA. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Twlighter 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Have done alot of work on this article. I'm seeing if this is FA or GA level. -- Twlighter 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Object maybe GA material, but isn't FA material, the article is fairly short, and becomes a bit listy near the end, the lead is fairly poor as well, better than almost all episote articles though
Pilot (House) is the best one that I could think of, use that as a example. Thanks.
Jaranda
wat's sup
04:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was really looking for a guideline, so I had to make something up .-- Twlighter 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding episode reviews: While I can't access one of the sources linked there, the other two (NYT and Boston Globe) don't appear to give any numerical value to their reviews, even though the article claims that. Did you get these numbers off Metacritic? They are probably just rough attempts to assign a numerical value to the basic judgment of the review.
Everyking
09:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I got those off Metacritic, but it is reliable? --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, I think Metacritic is making its own rough estimate in numerical terms of what the review is saying. I don't think you should use the numbers in that case because they aren't from the actual sources. The sources didn't actually give those numbers; some other source interpreted the reviews and assigned a number. Everyking 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I got those off Metacritic, but it is reliable? --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Regarding the references, it's usually better to give the number of the "chapter and verse " rather than quoting them in full. Just give the name of the DVD/VHS the episode appeared on, and if you want to be really precise follow up with the time into the episode at which the comment was made. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 11:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)/
- Comment: suggest rm from here, act on suggestions, and submit at WP:GAC. Rlevse 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment doesn't contain a section detailing the production of the episode, and the headings don't conform to
WP:MOS
Jay32183
22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to do this, but there were virtually no sources, which is bad for a article. --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's the typical problem with these kinds of articles. DVD commentary makes it easier, but this can be really hard. Unfortunately, this information is needed to make the comprehensiveness requirement. Jay32183 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to do this, but there were virtually no sources, which is bad for a article. --
Twlighter
03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be closing this down, becase it's apparaent the futherist this article can go is GA. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Twlighter 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)