Talk:Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)/GA1

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 18:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Issues edit

General edit

  • No dead links. Great work!
  • No dab links. Great work!
  • Images have good rationales

Infobox edit

  • I thought the article is about "Give Peace a Chance", not "Invasion"
  • Reference for "Guest stars"?

Lede edit

  • Unlink American television per WP:OVERLINK
  • "and the show's 109th episode overall" unneeded per other articles I have reviewed
    • I don't know about that. It is commonly used across other good article episodes such as the Glee episodes and "Over There", a featured article.
  • No need for "in the United States" as it says it above
    • Above it says it's an 'American' show, it doesn't say it aired in the US.

Plot edit

  • "After Shepherd spending" → "After Shepherd spend"
    • That's not proper English.

Production edit

  • No issues

Reception edit

  • Rename section to "Broadcast and reception"
    • Unnecessary imposing of personal criteria;   Not done. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "first broadcast" → "originally broadcast" per the above
  • Link MTV
  • "Steve Marsi of TV Fanatic was positive of the episode". Huh? Re-write to: "Steve Marsi of TV Fanatic gave a positive review"
  • "Amanda Krill of Cinema Blend called Tahir's character "likable from the moment you meet him", and she too was fearful that Karev and Adamson would form a relationship". Remove that review all together it has a not a good source, per WP:RS and WP:GNG
    • I disagree about Cinema Blend, because it is a WP:RS and although it may not be "the highest quality"; that is only a requirement of FAs. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Former Star-Ledger editor Alan Sepinwall was positive of the episode" → "Former Star-Ledger editor Alan Sepinwall praised the episode, etc."
  • BuddyTV doesn't need to be italic
    •   Done, and I also fixed it in the refs. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

References edit

  • Ref. 11 and 15 are not good sources. Ref. 11 is a "why should we care what they said", and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Ref. 15 is a blog, and isn't a good source.
    • I disagree about Cinema Blend, because it is a WP:RS and although it may not be "the highest quality"; that is only a requirement of FAs. Also, although it is a blog, it is Alan Sepinwall's blog, and he is a well-known former editor of The Star-Ledger. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • IMDb should be before TV.com

On hold, and good work. TBrandley 20:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

All done or responded to, TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply