I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it for FA status soon. I have not gone through FAC before, so I am seeking advice to ensure that process goes smoothly. I also want to make sure the article is understandable to those unfamiliar with the episode or TV series. Thanks, RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks pretty good, and seems worthy of FA (though I have also not gone through FAC before). I've just found some minor corrections to be made:
Use Template:TV ratings for things like "A− grade," "5 out of 5 stars," etc.
I've never seen that template used in an FA, and it's only in a few places overall. Plus, it would be relatively short in this article, and it would make the reviews without numeric ratings seem lesser, in my opinion. I'm going to hold off for now, especially with the ongoing RfC about a similar template's relevance.
Alright then. I kinda dislike this style but it is acceptable, or maybe I'm just used to album articles having rating templates.
I've always thought that publishers are the companies behind a website and that if the two names are the same, |website= or |work= should be used over |publisher= (per Template:Cite web#Publisher). All four of these are the names of the website and are no different from the other websites listed, so why should they be changed? (Of course, I could be misinterpreting something.)
The difference is not necessarily related to that. |website= and |work= italicize the website being used, while |publisher= does not. This should generally be determined by whether the article for a specific linked publication italicizes its name or not. And the websites I have mentioned above do not, thus citing them as websites/works would not meet WP:MOS (though there is a certain conflict between Cite templates and the Manual of Style).
I was curious, so I did some digging in the MOS and found MOS:WEBITALIC, which states in part that "online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". There's also a long footnote that seems to support italics in this case; at any rate, I don't think there should be an upright publisher value without a corresponding italicized website/work value.
I don't know then. I wasn't aware that MOS:WEBITALIC existed when I made this comment but ok; as I said, there is a certain conflict with the MOS and Cite templates, so I will not bother too much with this.
Rolling Stone ref should have |url-access=limited
Interesting... I guess my browser or ad-blocker got around the article limit somehow, so I never noticed it. Done.
This is exactly what happened to me lol. I also use an ad-blocker (the one that comes with Opera GX) and I didn't know that it got around the article limit as well, but then I saw someone reviewing an FA candidate saying that "Rolling Stone refs need |url-access=limited" and decided to test navigating around RS articles without the ad-blocker on. And it worked, once I had read some 5 or 6 articles it asked for a subscription.
That's it. I think this article is going to have a smooth FAC promotion when reviewed (but then again, I haven't had any FACs myself). Wetrorave (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick feedback! I've added my comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wetrorave: Thank you again for your continued feedback – more thoughts above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say my comments are all addressed now.
Also, sorry for this review being small—I have mostly focused on the lead/infobox and the refs/ELs, which are my areas of "expertise" (or, at least, I think they are). Wetrorave (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For this, fantasy-comedy television series, from the lead, I do not think it is necessary to extend the link for television comedy to "comedy television series". I would instead just keep it to "comedy".
Done.
For this part, In the episode, the four humans, I have no idea who "the four humans" are. I think this would be clarified with my above suggestions of a brief overview sentence in the first paragraph. You do a good job with explaining in this part, Accounting, the section of the afterlife that calculates point totals for people's good and bad actions during their lives, but there are other instances that I find rather confusing. I do not really know who Janet is for instance.
Waiting on this for now
That is for the best. Apologies for this as I probably should have waited to get into this until the above part is completed. I probably got too ahead of myself here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new sentence from above should resolve this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little confused by this part, planning for it began earlier than normal due to filming challenges, as it was not immediately clear what these "filming challenges" were. Later on in the same paragraph, you mention visual effects. If this is the reason, then I would restructure the paragraph somewhat to make this connection clear and not separate them from one another.
Removed phrase entirely – it's not particularly insightful or relevant.
That is what I thought, but I did not want to be too forward about it. This information is already conveyed clearly in the same paragraph so I agree that it is not particularly relevant. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment for this part, with Carden's performance receiving widespread acclaim, from the lead. I would avoid this type of sentence structure (i.e. with X verb-ing). I do not have any real issue with this, but I have received several notes about it during the FAC process and I have seen several notes about it in others' FAC reviews to avoid this sentence structure. I would revise this instance and any other instances in the article.
Done.
Is there a reason that the guest stars are not mentioned in the lead?
I figured the guest stars weren't relevant enough to the episode to merit discussion in the lead but are notable enough to merit inclusion.
Fair enough. Thank you for answering this. I just wanted to get your opinion about it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is a strong enough justification to include the infobox image (File:The Good Place - Janet(s).jpg). It is strongly encourage to keep non-free media usage to a minimal, and it should only be used to convey information that cannot be understood through the prose alone. This image seems more decorative than informative in my opinion.
My reason for including the image was to clearly show how the episode included multiple Janets in the same scene. It certainly seemed more insightful than other infobox images for TV episode FAs, such as "San Junipero" and "Donald Trump" (Last Week Tonight). Do you think it could work if it is more clearly explained and connected to the rest of the article, or should it still be removed?
First, I want to clarify and emphasize that this is just my opinion so I would wait to hear from other editors before removing the image. If I am being completely honest, I do not the infobox images in either the "San Junipero" and "Donald Trump" (Last Week Tonight) articles have super strong rationales either.
With that being said, this does remind me of a somewhat similar screenshot (File:FacesKlingonHumaTores.jpg) I used in a FA on a television episode ("Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager)). In that instance, I used a screenshot to visually represent the prosthetic work and the physical differences between the two iterations of the character as that is something heavily discussed by the citations.
So after reflecting on my own use of a screenshot, I can better understand how your image could help readers. I would fill out the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for File:The Good Place - Janet(s).jpg though as there are instances of "n.a." to fully explain the benefits of this image. I think that would help to answer my original concerns with the image. Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. (For what it's worth, I also think the "San Junipero" and Last Week Tonight images are borderline cases at best, but apparently others thought they were acceptable, so I went with it.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my review of the lead and the infobox. I will continue my review of the rest of the article once my above comments have been addressed. Apologies for doing this review in a more piecemeal fashion. I just want to make sure I read through the article thoroughly. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I can help a little. I have let responses to your above points. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: More comments above – your quick response is very helpful. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph, I would include a single sentence that provides an overview of The Good Place's plot for readers who have never watched the show. The article is currently written from the perspective of someone who is already familiar with the series and does not really account for unfamiliar readers.
There are two options for how I could do this. The first option would be to start from the beginning – something similar to The Good Place's lead: the initial premise follows Eleanor Shellstrop, a woman welcomed after her death to "the Good Place", a highly selective Heaven-like utopia designed and run by afterlife "architect" Michael as a reward for her righteous life. However, she realizes that she was sent there by mistake and must hide her morally imperfect past behavior while trying to become a better and more ethical person. However, this isn't particularly relevant, since (spoiler) they're not really in the Good Place, so it doesn't really provide good context without becoming long-winded. The second option would be to summarize the plot at the current point; for example, After rediscovering the afterlife earlier in the season, Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason seek to help others on Earth with the help of afterlife architect Michael and programmed guide Janet. I'm still not sure that will be helpful for or make sense to unfamiliar readers (stupid curse of knowledge!), so any advice would be helpful. Also, would this need citations since it falls outside the episode and cited sources?
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the spoiler warning, but I somehow already knew that twist. I would go for some version of the second option, and provide an overview of the series that would be most appropriate for this season and this episode. Your second example is actually very good because it does give an unfamiliar reader like myself a solid foundation to build from while reading the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the second option and made a few tweaks to reduce the paragraph's length so it doesn't dominate the lead too much. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the sentence on the show's overview to the first paragraph (i.e. right before the last sentence in the first paragraph) to keep the second paragraph entirely about the episode summary instead. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have gone ahead and did this edit myself. Feel free to revert if you disagree with it. I have linked "identity crisis" in the lead to be consistent with the body of the article where it is linked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, Upon arriving in Janet's (D'Arcy Carden) void, it is less than ideal to have the parenthetical separate a possessive phrase. I would see if there is a way to avoid this.
Now says When Janet (D'Arcy Carden) brings Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason into her void, the four humans...
I have a comment on this part, the four humans are accidentally transformed into versions of Janet. You should name who these four humans are. The plot summary is separate from the lead so you will still have to introduce these characters to the reader.
Fixed in above comment
Would it be helpful to include brief descriptive phrases for Janet and Michael? I think it could be useful to introduce them to an unfamiliar reader.
I think it would be best to exclude them here. The lead offers context for the show and its characters; I'd prefer to keep the plot section focused as much as possible.
That makes sense to me. I think in this instance, descriptive phrases would be too cumbersome and would make the prose unnecessarily awkward. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the content questions. Again, I have not seen the show so I was confused by this sentence: Despite this, Michael asks to see Doug Forcett's file. Who is Doug Forcett?
Doug Forcett is a human living on Earth who managed to guess most of the details of the afterlife and ends up living his life devoted to good actions, even though it makes him miserable. You can read more about him here or here. Maybe this type of detail could be included in a footnote? It's not relevant to the plot but would be useful due to the lack of a "Don't Let the Good Life Pass You By" article.
I think a footnote would be the best solution here. I think adding a description of the character to the actual plot summary would make the prose cumbersome so a footnote would avoid that. I think a description is necessary as it would help an unfamiliar reader (like myself) understand his role in this episode. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added footnote with sources.
For this part, Her resulting identity crisis causes her to change into new bodies, could you clarify what you mean by change into new bodies? Is she changing into random people?
Yes – changed to change into random bodies to reflect this
That works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about this part, Michael, Janet, and the humans flee. What are they fleeing from?
Clarified by noting they flee from the accountants
Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review. My above comments are concentrated on the "Plot" section. I think this may be the most difficult part of the article as this episode seems to be building on past storylines and the show's overall concept is quite fantastical so it requires more background. I really like reading the article so far and I think you have done a wonderful job. I want to be clear about that. I will stop here and will resume my review tomorrow and will go through larger portions of the article then. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the image caption for D'Arcy Carden touches on the response to her performance, do you think it would be a better fit for the "Reviews" subsection?
As currently written, yes, but I think it makes more sense to include Carden's picture before Merchant, so I reworked the caption to focus on Carden's role during filming.
That makes sense to me. I do not really have a strong opinion about the placement. I just thought it was a little odd to have a caption that touched on reviews in a section other than the one for reviews. The new image caption works for me and makes the image's placement seem clearer to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for these two parts, but the writers realized they needed to use the concept as more than a gimmick and The writers also met with philosophical advisors. Are the "writers" referenced in both parts referencing the writers for this specific episode or the writing team for the show as a whole? If it is the first option, it seems odd to do that before introducing the writers by name later in the same paragraph.
I'm pretty sure the sources are talking about the writing staff as a whole and have clarified correspondingly, but feel free to check the sources and see if you agree with my interpretation.
Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, Carden later said she was "stunned" when she learned, I would paraphrase the quote as it is not necessary or particularly useful. I have been told in the past to avoid using one-word quotes like this one.
Changed "stunned" to surprised
For this part, The cast as a whole began rehearsals for it earlier than, I do not think "as a whole" is needed. I understand why you put it in there as an emphasis that they all this together, but I think this can be understood without it and it is best to concise (although I do not follow that particularly well myself).
Done. (Also changed it to the episode; hopefully, that makes it easier to follow.)
For this part. To film the kiss, she had to kiss a pair of wax, I would say "To film the scene" to avoid repeating "kiss" twice in the same sentence (and it is used in the previous sentence as well). Something about this came across a little too repetitive for me.
Done.
I do not understand this part, then auto-tuned, but Schur explained that they ultimately went with the original version. Why would it be more difficult for them to get permission to use an extremely auto-tuned version of "Believe"? I find this a little odd, especially since the song is so well-known for how it uses auto-tune. I am also not really sure what is meant by "the original version". Does that mean Carden's cover was not used and instead they just use Cher's voice? Apologies for the multiple questions.
Clarified that it is Cher's recording and changed to use it that way to to use that version. As to why it was easier to get permission, I'm not sure why the label preferred that – the sources offer no further explanation.
For this part, an allusion to a similar mug used by Michael Scott, I would say a "similar one" instead to avoid repeating "mug", which is already used earlier in the same sentence and once more in the next sentence. It reads too repetitive to me.
I think a similar one sounds a bit off, so I replaced mug in the next sentence with prop to cut down on repetition.
Here are my comments for the "Production" section. I will stop here for now to avoid overwhelming you with comments. Everything I pointed out above is rather nitpick-y so there should not be anything too major or time-consuming. I hope this helps and have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would simplify this part, One of the episode's themes centers on the meaning of the self, to just say One of the episode's themes is the meaning of the self. The current version seems unnecessarily wordy to me.
Done.
Throughout the "Analysis" section, you introduce scholars by their university, as seen here (a professor at Southern Illinois University–Edwardsville), but that is not particularly useful for readers. I would instead introduce them by their specialty as that provides a clear description of who this person is and what they do to a reader. I also find the following sentence construction, Dane Sawyer of the University of La Verne, odd as I would not use that in the context of a university.
I've replaced all references to universities with their positions at said universities; let me know what you think of the new wordings.
Would it be possible to revise this part, In Buddhism, attachment to one's sense of self can cause suffering, to have it flow better within the paragraph? When I first read this paragraph, this sentence took me by surprise and I was not really sure what to make it of it until I kept reading. The Buddhism reference seemed rather sudden and it was not immediately clear to me that this was part of Sawyer's analysis of the episode.
Changed opening to Sawyer explains that Buddhists believe attachment...
This is a nitpick-y request, but for this part, had gamed the system and that the system itself was broken but too flawed to realize it, can you revise it to avoid repeating "the system" twice in the same sentence?
Now reads had gamed the system, which was too flawed to realize it was broken.
Do we have any information on the ratings for the prior episode ("Don't Let the Good Life Pass You By") and the next episode ("The Book of Dougs") as it would be helpful to know if this episode's ratings were an improvement over last week's and if the ratings for next week's episode either increased or decreased.
This source already covers ratings for the entire season, so I expanded it to note that ratings rose for the next episode. (The existing line that the ratings were a low point for the season implies they were down from the previous episode.)
This is another super nitpick-y comment, but for this part, The episode received highly positive reviews from critics, I would start with the episode title instead of "The episode". It would cut down on one of the instances of "episode" in this paragraph and I think it just looks better with the episode title.
Done.
I would not include the critic's letter or star grade in the prose, as done here (gave the episode an A− grade), as I think it is better to instead focus on what they are actually saying in the reviewer. The grade really does not mean much to a reader, and the only instance I would include it is if it is notable in itself. For instance, the Lil' Kim album The Naked Truth is the only album by a female rapper to be rated five mics by The Source so that makes the score notable enough to include in the prose. Sorry for the super random example. It was the only one I could think of off the top of my head and I want to at least provide one example to better illustrate my point.
Done.
The first paragraph of the "Reviews" subsection uses the same sentence structure to introduce the critic, (i.e. X from Y publication). An example is the following, Dennis Perkins of The A.V. Club gave, and i would include more variety as it does make the prose repetitive and as a result less engaging.
I think this part, The editors of Paste later named, can be misleading, specifically the "later" part. When I first read it, I assumed that the article was published a decent amount of time after the episode, but according to the citation, the Paste article was only published eight days after the episode first aired. I would remove "later" from this part.
My mistake – since it was an end-of-year list, I assumed there was a notable time gap and failed to recall that the episode aired in December.
I have a clarification question. The article points out how Carden did not receive an Emmy nomination for this episode and how it was perceived as a snub. Carden did receive a nomination at the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards for the next season. Was there any coverage during that award cycle that revisited this supposed snub?
Added a source that notes both her nomination in 2020 and her snub in 2019
In the "External links" section, you use The Good Place: The Podcast. What is that? Is it affiliated with the show?
Yes, it's affiliated with the show and has received positive reviews (see here and here), but it isn't clearly linked from the other NBC external link, so I figured it was worth including separately.
This should be my complete review. Apologies for the amount of comments. You have done a great job with the article. Let me know if you have any questions about anything. I have not really looked the sources in any way so my review is mostly about the prose (with some comments on images). Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about any delays – I've been busy for the last few days myself. My first round of responses is above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses so far. Take as much time as you need. Peer reviews take time and there's absolutely no reason to rush. I hope you are doing well with everything keeping you busy (and I hope it is nothing too serious). Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I should have addressed all of your comments by now. Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough with this (and thanks for looking out for me – it's nothing serious, just a busy time at work). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review. Everything has been addressed, and the article looks ready for a FAC to me. I am glad that it is nothing serious. Best of luck with this peer review and the future FAC. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, which is about a singer so it is super unrelated to this article. I have never put a biography article through the FAC process so I am a little nervous about it tbh so I pursued a peer review first. It's okay if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thank you again for all of your advice. Closing review shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
