Talk:American Horror Story: Freak Show/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Azealia911 (talk · contribs) 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Azealia911 _talk and I'll shortly be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. I'm happy to inform you that this article does not meet the grounds for an immediate failure, so a full, thorough review is to come within 48 hours. Thankyou, Azealia911 _talk 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your work and contributions, Azealia911 (talk · contribs)! Israeldmo (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you first for your review, even if you (unfairly, in my opinion) considered it a failing, it certainly helped me to improve this page, GA nominees Asylum and Coven pages, and GA page Murder House (because, while GA, it definitely needs improvements). I'm late because I didn't have much time this week. I tried to address all your comments, but some of them I had issues.

General

• All of the images used in the article need alt's.

• Done. I couldn't find a better text that could fit these images, so I let the actors' names and removed the characters they portray.

Lead

• "The season is mainly set in 1952 Jupiter, Florida" unless I'm mistaken, it's all set in 1952 Jupiter, Florida?

• Not done. The season has flashbacks and scenes set in the 60's.

• "John Cromwell reprising their roles from the series' second cycle" While he plays a character we saw in Asylum, he didn't actually appear in the season, so remove him.

• Not done. Jonh Cromwell appears in I Am Anne Frank: Part 1 as a young Dr. Arthur Arden, in a flashback.

Plot

• "her son Jimmy Darling" add something about his lobster hands.
• "three-breasted wife Desiree Dupree" → "three-breasted hermaphrodite wife Desiree Dupree" I know we eventually find out that she's not a hermaphrodite, but that's how she's sold for most of the season.
• "finally the tiny treasure from India" sounds very journalistic, try "finally the tiny performer from India"
• "towards the world" needs a comma after 'world'.
• "new to the troupe are strongman Dell and his wife Desiree," no mention of her then-hermaphrodite-ness?
• "also known as Dr. Arthur Arden (James Cromwell)," James doesn't appear in Freak Show, his son does.
• The B in (Patti Labelle) should be capital.
• Unlink magician.
• "drowned" → "drowns"

* All done. I put "her lobster-handed son", but I'm not sure if this is good. I'm not English-speaker native.

Cast and characters

• This section contains no sources whatsoever. This is alarming, not one single source to distinguish if these actors were even in the show, if they were main / secondary characters, nothing.

• Not done. I don't know exactly what source I should include. The episodes themselves are the source, honestly. Most actors confirmed are sourced in the "Casting" sub-section. There are cast members that the sites didn't report. Also, the sites didn't specify which actor is part of the main cast, which one is a special guest, and which one is recurring (the ones who appeared in more than one episode but weren't considered special guests). I checked some GA and featured articles, like House, and I couldn't find anything helpful. Any suggestion?

Episodes

• Are the directors, writers and original air dates sourced?

• Not done. The air dates are included in the ratings refs. The episodes are linked, and these articles are sourced. I checked the Twin Peaks episodes page, which it's a featured list, and it's in the same way.

Production

Development

• "In November, 2013, FX announced that the show had been renewed for a fourth season." needs citation.

• Done.

Casting

• This section needs somewhat re-jigging. The flow of the reading becomes boring around halfway through as it turns into an endless cycle of "*actor* played *character*, *character description*.*actor* played *character*, *character description*.*actor* played *character*, *character description*."

• I didn't know how to make it better (suggestion are always welcomed), but I organized it.

• "Patti LuPone was invited back for the fourth season." If I remember correctly, she didn't appear in the season, add something about the result of her offer.

• I removed this information because it wasn't a formal invitation, the writer basically said the show has always a place for her.

Filming

• "The premiere episode was directed by co-creator Murphy, his first effort since the pilot." I don't see what relevance this holds to the filming.

• Not done. I'm not sure if you think this information doesn't belong in this section or if you think the fact that it's the first episode Ryan directed since the pilot isn't relevant. If it's the latter, I think it is. Ryan Murphy is the co-creator and showrunner of the show, and a well-known director, I think it's relevant to know he directed an episode after years not doing that. Do you think I made a mistake?

Marketing

• This section is very basic, and the actual information cited doesn't even hold much relevance. The fan-made trailer has no connection to the show, and FX washed their hands of it, so I'm not sure why its included. Why are the casts appearances at comic-con not listed here? The endless merchandise? It feels like key information has been left out / that this section has been poorly researched.

• Not done yet. You're definitely right, but since this section is pretty basic in the Murder House article, which is GA, I didn't know this would be an issue. I'm going to do some research to improve it, using the Hotel article as a basis. I need time to do this, and since you're already concluded this page is failling, that's why I didn't do this yet.

EDIT: I confused the Murder House page with the Asylum page. Sorry. Israeldmo (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reception

Reviews

• Again, this section is far too small. If I wanted to be a real ass, I could fail the nomination just on this, citing lack of broad coverage (Point 3 of the good article criteria). You cite Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, both of which include nearly forty reviews together. Use them!

• Not done yet. It's basically for the same reasons as above.

Awards and nominations

• Expand on the summary of the section, talk about the most prestigious awards it was nominated for, things like Emmy's. Just a single sentence giving a statistic is a little bare.

• Not done. The lead already talked about some of the most prestigious awards it won, like the Emmys and the Critics' Choice Awards. It would be repetitive. Did I make a mistake?

• How exactly are these ordered? I can't work it out, it's not alphabetically, nor is it category, nominee or result...

• Not done yet. I personally don't think it needs to be ordered, but I'm going to do it alphabetically.

• A large total of 35 entries are unreferenced.

• They were referenced, but someone made me assume linked articles don't need refs. I only included the 17th CDG Award ref because the article is dated and don't specify the winners. Should I include them back?

Soundtrack

• Remove the Digital singles sub-heading, its a relativity small section and doesn't need splitting.
• "Curtain Call" redirects me to the wrong article.

• All done.

References

• #1 — Variety should be in italics. Un-italicize American Horror Story: Freak Show in the title too. Oh, and, this has nothing to do with Variety, the link takes me to a paper by the Art Directors Guild...
• #3 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #5 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #7 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics.
• #8 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics.
• #9 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics.
• #10 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics and shouldn't all be one word. Remove TVbytheNumbers.Zap2it.com from the title too.
• #11 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #12 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #13 — TV by the Numbers shouldn't be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #15 — The Hollywood Reporter should be in italics.
• #17 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics. Avoid SHOUTING in the titles too.
• #18 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #19 — Unlink Hollywood Life, the article it redirects to has nothing to do with the site.
• #20 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked. Avoid the SHOUTING.
• #21 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked. Avoid the SHOUTING.
• #23 — The Hollywood Reporter should be in italics.
• #24 — Access Hollywood should be in italics.
• #25 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #26 — Huffington Post should read The Huffington Post and should be in italics.
• #27 — Remove the space in TV Line to make it TVLine.
• #28 — Remove the space in The Wrap to make it TheWrap.
• #29 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #30 — Remove the space in TV Line to make it TVLine, and unlink it.
• #31 — Unlink Hollywood Life.
• #33 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #34 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #35 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #36 — Remove the space in TV Line to make it TVLine, and unlink it.
• #37 — Variety Magazine should read Variety.
• #38 — USA Today should be in italics.
• #39 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #41 — This reference is unreliable. An un-verified twitter account is unreliable.
• #42 — The Hollywood Reporter should be in italics.
• #43 — Deadline Hollywood should read Deadline.com.
• #44 — Entertainment Weekly should be in italics and shouldn't be linked.
• #45 — Metacritic shouldn't be in italics.
• #46 — Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't be in italics.
• #47 — Swap the quote marks in the film titles for apostrophes, avoid the shouting, Art Directors Guild shouldn't be in italics, it shouldn't be repeated in acronym directly after either.
• #48 — Same issues as above.
• #49 — Same issues as above.
• #50 — Film titles shouldn't be in italics, neither should Motion Picture Sound Editors.
• #51 — Cinema Audio Society Awards shouldn't be in italics.
• #52 — Convert 2015-01-22 into MDY date.
• #53 — Fangoria should be in italics.
• #54 — Avoid the SHOUTING.
• #55 — Young Artist Awards shouldn't be in italics. Avoid the SHOUTING.
• #56 — Art of the Title shouldn't be in italics.
• #57 — This reference is unreliable. IMDb is user-submitted and therefore unreliable.
• #58 — Online Film & Television Association shouldn't be in italics.
• #59 — iTunes shouldn't be in italics, but should be linked.
• #60 — iTunes shouldn't be in italics.
• #61 — iTunes shouldn't be in italics.
• #62 — iTunes shouldn't be in italics.

• All done, except #59 to #62. They're in italics because the "work=" part automatically put them in italics, so I couldn't do much about it. What should I do?

External links

• Is there any other official site for American Horror Story on a global scale? It seems that, as a UK internet user, only American users can access the site, with an alternative link only being provided for Canadian users.
• Per guidelines on external links, only one external link should be listed, so unless there's special circumstances, two need to be removed.

• I couldn't find an official page that all people can access. But I still let it to be the only one link listed, because it's the official one. Once again, thank you. Israeldmo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Status: On-hold for seven days.

Sorry if some of my critiques seem overtly picky. Ping me when you've addressed all of my comments, if they're not all addressed within the seven day period, I'll consider failing, thanks. Azealia911 _talk 22:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Azealia911 thanks a lot for being "overtly picky" as you say. This nomination is faulty and prematured at best. Lets see if the nominator can overhaul it. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

IndianBio thanks. In all honesty, I don't have 100% faith that this article will be ready for GA after the waiting period is complete, even if I gave the nominator an extra week or so. The overtly long plot (which I missed) along with the basic critical reception section and unsourced awards are the biggest issues, with the messy referencing not far behind. But I put the article on-hold for seven days, so I'll stick to my word. If, by the 19th, my comments haven't been addressed, I'll consider failing the nomination. Azealia911 _talk 06:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I left a note at Israel's talk page checking if he needs any help :) —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I read your note, IndianBio, and I truly appreciate your help. I didn't think it was premature because the page seemed well-constructed for me and similar to the Murder House page, which is GA. Could you help me reduce the Plot section? Also, as I said, I'm not totally fluent in English, I could let the page full of typos, so I need assistance when comes to writing. I know Azealia911 already gave her decision, but I want to renominate it. Thanks. Israeldmo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Israeldmo has been offline since the 15th, and I'll be out all day tomorrow, so I'm going to go ahead and make a decision on the nomination, as I can't envision them all being addressed by 10pm tomorrow. IndianBio, I appreciate you attempting to help out with the nomination, but as you yourself pointed out, there are just too many unaddressed issues. Failing, sorry. Azealia911 _talk 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)