Talk:This Year's Girl (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

This review is transcluded from Talk:This Year's Girl (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bennv123 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this to my list, review to follow in at most a few days. —Kusma (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Thanks for taking on this review. I will try to address any issues in the review as promptly as I can. Bennv123 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I've tried to address your key points as listed below. Let me know what you think. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv123, I think we're good now. I moved the citation for the guests to the end, which makes it look less like it covers only the first line. Alternatively you could just add an extra line "Reference: [1]" or something. I would suggest to look into using a less blurry (on large screens) Faith image, but that is not a reason not to promote. Excellent work! —Kusma (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

• Lead: decent summary of article
• "boring main narrative" might be better to use a direct quote ("dull") and quotation marks, it is almost as if we are agreeing the main plot of Season 4 is boring (even if it is).
  •  Done
• Background: shouldn't this mention Joss Whedon?
  •  Done Added "created by Joss Whedon" to the first sentence.
• Plot: we haven't been told that Buffy/Riley/Willow are students, so "on campus" is a bit unclear. Perhaps mention this in Background section?
  •  Done Added "Season four begins with Buffy and Willow as freshmen at the University of California, Sunnydale." to the Background section.
• Production: Totally optional, but is it worth saying more about Petrie and Gershman and how this particular episode fits into their Buffy related work?
• "The original episode had already been shot when it was found to be nine minutes too short." I am not sure the "original episode" really is a thing, so maybe reformulate, something like "After the originally planned shooting had been completed, it was discovered that the episode would be nine minutes too short"?
  •  Done
• Analysis: "destroys Faith's paradise by stabbing the Mayor, which, according to Keller, is both a manifestation" split the long sentence somewhere in the middle of this?
  •  Done Split into "destroys Faith's paradise by stabbing the Mayor. According to Keller, this scene is both a manifestation"
• Reception: is it possible to contextualise the "88th most watched program" a bit more? Is that good or bad compared to other Buffy?
  • I've searched various sources (books, journals, news articles, archives etc) but have not been able to find any reliable source that I can use to contextualises the ratings of this episode without crossing the line into WP:OR territory.
• Which parts of the reception are from the time of the broadcast and what is later?
  •  Done Tried to address this with these edits
• "he credited Whedon with skillfully tying all the storylines together" was Whedon involved with that?
  •  Done The critic specifically credits Whedon, saying: "But as usual, creator Joss Whedon pulls the various plot threads together in unexpected ways and makes each one reinforce the rest." But I've rephrased it to "he noted that all the storylines were skillfully tied together to lead into the next episode".
• Guest appearances in infobox seem to be unsourced.
  •  Done Although I only added the citation meant for the whole list to the first line. Is that sufficient?

Generally well written and it seems fairly complete. I only have some minor complaints. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1218902799.

• 3: ok
• 7: ok
• 9c: ok
• 11: could not access
• 13: ok
• 17b: ok
• 26: ok

Spot checks passed! Faithful to sources, no close paraphrasing. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose is OK, minor points above.
• No MoS issues.
• Sources are reliable for pop culture (but not much use is made of slightly more scholarly Buffy studies, which I think did exist back in the day).
• Everything seems properly sources except possibly the infobox.
• Broad enough, minor suggestions above.
• Stable, neutral and not overly detailed.
• Images are ok in terms of licensing / fair use. Quality of File:Marco Ramirez, Doug Petrie Daredevil Signing NYCC 2015 (cropped).jpg is not great, but there is not much else. I would suggest to try to replace File:Eliza Dushku lk (cropped).jpg by something less blurry if you can.
• Images have ALT text.

Overall a pleasure to review: a well researched and well written TV episode article, not much to do. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All good now, but the image could optionally still be replaced to get rid of the blurriness. —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]