Talk:Grey's Anatomy season 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Season Finale Summary

I think the summary missed a subtle point towards the end during the wedding when Meredith and Derek made contact and then she turned and walked away. I'm not certain, but I believe that the writer's tacitly implying that Meredith had finally decided to ditch Derek.

Next episode, listings are incorrect

on the official podcast it was said that the next new episode will be "Scars and Souvenirs" and will air on thursday March 15. please update the page as necessary. brandon.macuser 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Validity of published Titles to future episodes

I would like to know how people are saying they know the future title. I think you should have to cite that somehow.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aggiejohnp (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC). I would like to know the name of the song and the vocalist in the episode that originally aired on Sept. 28, 2006. The scene was when Callie was dancing by herself wearing sunglasses and was scantily clad. The title of the episode was "I am a Tree".

According to tv.com music in that episode was

• "The Time Is Now" by Moloko Song 9
• "Crashing Down" by Mat Kearney Song 3
• "Theme From Chalets" by The Chalets (Not finding a sound sample)
• "The Mating Game" by Bittersweet Song 2: The title Song
• "Running On Sunshine" by "Jesus Jackson" (Not finding a sound sample or this artist)
• "Open Your Eyes" by Snow PatrolSong 10

Although technically this isn't related to editing the article and I can't tell you which one you want.--T. Anthony 07:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode descriptions long

The descriptions for many of these epispdes seem unnecessarily long and detailed(compare descriptions for seasons 1 and 2). Baner17 12:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, you are allowed to have an opinion, however just because you believe they are to long does not actually make them too long. If you do not like the present length you are welcome to create a shorter version for your personal use :-) - However I dispute they are to long, I believe they are a good decent size. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Guess I should have posted in talk before flagging. I'm still getting used to this.Baner17 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to split these off into their own articles but I just don't think it will happen, some people have grown to detest episode pages and mass AfD them all, which sucks because there is so much valuable content. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may I say go for it. (By "it" I mean feel free to start pages for notable episodes) There's whole categories for episodes of series less popular, even with critics, than Grey's is. For example we have Category:Prison Break episodes, Category:NCIS episodes, even Category:Joey (TV series) episodes and Category:Yes, Dear episodes. I don't know anyone who even watched Yes, Dear. (No offense to their fans meant) Granted I'm not sure we should have all these categories for TV episodes, but if we're going to than I say a category for Grey's is just as warranted as anything in Category:Episodes by television series--T. Anthony 07:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The episode descriptions are really long and detailed. Notice that the headers above the descriptions say "Summary." A summary should not include minute details (such as Meredith telling Derek not to be her "knight in shining whatever"), or a lengthy play-by-play of the plot. The only summary on this page that is really a true summary is for the first episode of the season, which concisely addresses the relationship issues, etc., that figured in that episode; everything else from there is just unnecessarily long. If people want to know the details of what happened, who did what, and who said what, they can buy/rent/tape/watch the episodes online. Every episode could be neatly summarized if a sentence or two is alloted for each relationship currently going on/issue a character is dealing with, and one or two for the overriding plot of the episode (e.g.: the ferry crash, the attendings interviewing for chief). These types of summaries are usually employed when you look up the TV schedule online somewhere. Some sort of synopsis formula is in order to keep every new summary added from expanding to epic proportions. MissMJ 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

another song question

does anybody know the name of the song in Six Days, Part 2 that goes: I'm in lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ove... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.82.201 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

You can check Grey's Anatomy Music Guide as it even says in what part of the episode each song was played.--T. Anthony 06:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New version of page -- test

Hey folks. There was some discussion on Talk:Grey's Anatomy (soundtrack) about splitting off the episode music info onto their own page. I don't feel like that's productive, and I instead believe that the track lists should be listed with each episode. One of the guidelines of the wiki is to make things easy to find. I believe that when someone is looking for the music of an episode, it's more intuitive to look at the episode than to go looking for "Music of Grey's Anatomy" article. Anyway, I also did some formatting updates to put all the bullet-points for each episode together. Please take a look and comment at the new version. If there are no objections, I'll merge the new version with the current version. [version here]. --Wolf530 (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

why we dont do the episode page like other ones

why we dont do the episode page like other ones like prision break, futurama , so each episode has their own page so the people can understand better —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.164.158.198 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

this would make it alot easier to read through. and make it less long. i think you should make it on each page with links to the previous and next episode like most show's episodes are organized.

I agree. I have already started work on this. At this moment, I have created seperate pages for all of season one. Hope to do the same for the second and the third season. *_* 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode 3-17

This list has the episode titled "Some Kind of Miracle", but the writers' blog has it listed as "Sometimes a Miracle". Anyone know for certain which it is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberTrini (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Episode 3-17

This list has the episode titled "Some Kind of Miracle", but the writers' blog has it listed as "Sometimes a Miracle". Anyone know for certain which it is? CyberTrini 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still "Some Kind of Miracle", blogs are usually not a reliable source since Marti Noxon may have made a typo or something either way all press releases say "Some Kind of Miracle". Sfufan2005 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3/22 airing is a repeat

Top of the first page shows a new episode "My Favorite Mistake" running on March 22, 2007. However, ABC's webpage shows a rerun will air on that date -- entitled "From a Whisper to a Scream," which originally aired November 23, 2006. Entertainment Weekly also reported in a recent issue that no new episodes for GA would run until mid- to late-April. 209.179.168.33 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 final

Does anyone know if the season final is going to be a double episode? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.11.172.36 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Episode summaries removed

I just removed the episode descriptions: copyright violations from http://www.onlygreysanatomy.com/greys_anatomy_season3.html AxelBoldt 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit should be reverted it. You should put this up for discussion. There are no no episode summaries. I don't know about other users but I frequently check wikipedia television articles for individual episode summaries. There has to be some compromise here.Seantpainter 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the episodes descriptions back in. I personally wrote several of the more detailed episode descriptions for season 3 and you can check my contributions if necessary. A lot of work goes into these summaries, especially getting the various medical conditions and patients' names right. I don't mind people posting my work on other sites, but to jump the gun and assume that the version on Wikipedia is plagiarized is rather irresponsible. I cannot and will not claim credit for the summaries written for seasons 1 and 2, but I'm sure the author(s) spent much time and effort on them as well. Hence, I'm reinstating the summaries for all seasons. Intone 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted notices to the copyvio problems board, and blanked the summaries until this is able to be checked, the summaries are spot on to the site, I will not speculate, personally, but appear they were written by the same person. Dureo 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read this. It's quite clear they are the infringing website, not Wikipedia. Matthew 11:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greys ep301.jpg

Image:Greys ep301.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greys ep305.jpg

Image:Greys ep305.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey's Anatomy (season 3)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through the article and list any existent issues below. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues

• Remove the cast picture and Katherine Heigl's picture as you are only allowed to have one non-free picture per article, which is the DVD cover, per WP:NFCC. Plus, you can't use a non free picture of a living person, so Heigl's would need to be deleted anyways. If you want to use a picture of Heigl, use the one from her page.

But the season one page and her page have more non-free pictures. Is it compulsory to delete those in this article? I believe they are perfect for the article. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Katherine's article contains 2 free pictures, they're not non free. Also, you have to delete the other one from Season one, it must have slipped my mind. If you don't remove it, I'll have to delist the article as GA because it would fail Criteria 6A. It doesn't matter if they're perfect for the article, it's copyright violation which is illegal. I see you've removed the one of Heigl, but remove the cast one immediately or the article will be quick failed. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk), 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of lead, this sentence, "The season aired a two-hour episode who served as a backdoor pilot for the upcoming spin-off", where it says 'who served', it should say 'which served'.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Production needs to be expanded to cover more than Private Practice.

 Not done I haven't found anything. But I believe that the backdoor pilot, which was an episode of the third season, is about enough. What do you suggest? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not nearly enough. This is not an article on Private Practice. In fact, there is too much information about it. If there is not other info added and some Private Practice info removed, the article will fail under both sections of Criteria Three. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything! Should I just add general information about filming that can be found on Grey's Anatomy? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. Also remove some info on Private Practice. Make PP the second paragraph. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reference the crew, as was done in the Season One article, with the note.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence in cast, "Katherine Heigl portrayed fellow intern Dr. Isobel "Izzie" Stevens who decides to quit her job after beginning a relationship with the now deceased pacient Denny Duquette.", it should say patient, not pacient.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• In cast, credit Derek as chief of neuro.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• If more info can be found on reviews of the season in whole, not just certain characters (mainly Izzie), then include it.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Last sentence of ratings isn't referenced.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence in awards, "T.R. Knight was also nominated for his performance in the third season in the "Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series" category, which was eventually won by Terry O'Quinn, due to his performance in the third season of Lost.", don't include who won it, if they're not relevant to the show. Instead of including the winner, include what episode T.R. was nominated for.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again under awards, "Elizabeth Reaser and Kate Burton were nominated for "Outstanding Guest Actress in a Drama Series", for their performances as Rebecca Pope and Ellis Grey, respectively, but lost to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit's Leslie Caron", include the episodes nominated for, and take out who won.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Expand References 20-44, to include what website they're coming from, and if existent, the author.

I don't know what you are referring to. Isn't the website they're coming from written at "url" and "publisher"? What else can I write? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the website is "ABCMediaNet". Include that with all of the references. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Preferably standardize the dates on all the references. For example, some list dates as 2009-08-24, while others as August 24, 2008. I'd recommend using the August 24, 2008 format, as it's easiest to read at a glance.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done References 2, 3, 4, and 14 still do not have the correct date format. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, skipped them accidentally. All done now. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Add a caption to the DVD cover art in the infobox.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead talks about very good reception to the season, yet the critical reception section is mainly negative. Perhaps rephrase the sentence of the lead.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk), 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am putting the review on hold so the nominator can assess the problems. Please fix these issues within seven (7) days and then I'll continue on with the review. If these issues are not fixed within the limit, then the nomination will unfortunately have to be failed. To make it easier for me, I would prefer that after you fix each issue, you put the "done" template ( Done) ({{done}}) after it or the "not done" ( Not done) ({{notdone}}) template but explaining why you didn't make the change. Looking forward to finishing the review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Since all issues have been addressed, the article now meets the good article criteria and I'm happy to sign it off. Great job to the nominator for all your hard work on the review and article. Happy editing! TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)