Wikipedia:Peer review/You're Gonna Love Tomorrow/archive1

You're Gonna Love Tomorrow

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to at least good article status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Bradley0110

• Right off the bat there is a problem with the infobox image. The purpose states: "[...] This screenshot depicts the introduction of the Dave character, who is the focus of the season's mystery. The screenshot also features the Edie character, one of the series major characters who is also involved in the mystery storyline." You really can't use a non-free image to represent a concept (i.e. a mystery). I look at the image and all I see is "Man and woman". The image of McDonough is suitable enough to represent both his and Dave's first appearance in the show. If you really think the image can provide information that cannot be expressed in words, I suggest you ask users at WT:TV about helping you to bolster the non-free rationale.

• Lead: A good summary of the article. Some issues though:
  • I would dump the season premiere link behind "premiere episode"; it adds nothing to this article and devalues the link to DH season 5 that is next to it.
  • Something I've seen a lot of in episode articles about, particularly, ABC and NBC shows is the expansion of the initialisms. This is something I think came about when someone took a Lost episode article to FAC, and someone inisisted "ABC" be "American Broadcasting Company" in the text to differentiate from the Australian Broadcasting Company. This is totally unnecessary; ABC is the television network that is run by the American Broadcasting Company. I know you're just following what has (sadly) become the standard, but I recommend altering this to "ABC (American Broadcasting Company)" (i.e. just switch the parentheses). The article clearly says it aired in the United States, so there's no way anyone can confuse it with the Australian Broadcasting Company. I'd recommend doing this in future episode articles too.
  • Dump the "also" at the head of the last sentence in the second paragraph.
  • "making it the most-watched show of the night and the second most-watched program of the week." Could you specify in the sentence whether this is just on ABC or across all networks.

• Plot section: I like the addition of the Background section. I think this is going to become common in episode articles about serialised shows.
  • In the Background section you're using the fictional past tense in places where you should be using the fictional present (e.g. "[...] Susan (Teri Hatcher) and Mike Delfino (James Denton) celebrated the birth of their son."); although you're referring to events "five years before" the narrative timeframe of this episode, you're still summarising episodes that have been broadcast.
  • "Gabrielle convinces Juanita to play a game in which she chases after her car in order to lose weight.". This lumpy prose confused me ("in which", "in order to"). Is Gabrielle driving the car? Is Juanita aware it is a game?

• Production
  • "Filming for the episode began on July 7, 2008." The source was published in June, so how can you be sure the schedule was adhered to? Unless another source is available that confirms the date, I'd change the sentence to "Filming for the episode was scheduled to begin on July 7, 2008."
  • Full stop at the end of "fourth season finale".
  • Is it important that Cherry pitched the idea to McPherson at a baseball game (besides it being a good pun!)?
  • The rest of this first paragraph features a lot of quotes from Cherry that would be better paraphrased. It currently has a very journalistic tone; "He stated", "He also referred to the show's second season, which proved to be creatively challenging. He said", "Cherry said that the time jump would be permanent. He commented", etc.
  • The same applies to the second paragraph. It's very difficult to see an encyclopeadic explanation for the changes to the characters' circumstances when it's just a wall of quotations from different people. You really need to pull out the salient facts from these quotes to really make it understandable.
  • "His role was described by the press" It appears that it was just BuddyTV that offered this description, rather than "the press" (whatever the scope of that refers to).
  • "Producers said that the inclusion of the Carver twins could attract a younger female audience because of their resemblance to Matt Damon." It appears to have just been one producer, Sabrina Wild, who mentioned Damon. I also don't see where in the source it states younger females would tune in because of the (perceived) Damon resemblance.
  • In the fourth paragraph, you have two instances of "removed from the cast". This has a very weird ring to it. Can you not just say "left the cast"?

• Reception
  • A nice summary of the ratings without overdetailing.
  • The BARB source only indicates the ratings for the Channel 4 broadcast, not that it was the premiere. Additionally Channel 4 is not a network, it is a station or a channel.
  • The quotes from some reviewers aren't really necessary; "Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker commended the time jump, declaring, "This season, the Housewives aren't desperate: They're avidly ambitious, like the series itself," and giving the episode a 'B+'" could be recast as "Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker commended the time jump as a reflection of both the characters' and series ambitions, and rated the episode 'B+'". Using too many of these tabloid-y quotes devalues other more analytical reviews in the same section, such as the Brian Lowry quote (I note the text in the quote box is almost unreadably small. Can you increase this to, say, 95%?).

• References
  • A large number of web-only sources are formatted as publications; sites like BuddyTV and TV by the Numbers should not be in italics.
  • I'm concerned about the high number of references to BuddyTV. BuddyTV is one of those sites that's accepted as a reliable source in small doses but I'm concerned that the article relies on it too much. If the same information can't be found in more reliable sources then I wouldn't worry about it.
  • Ref 18: The description of the host channel is "Hey, I'm just doing this all for fun... I'm not associated with DH at all, and I don't intend any copyright infringement! Anyways, here you can find the most recent DH videos/interviews/etc and some cool older ones." This indicates that the channel is hosting videos produced for either the official show website or the DVDs without permission. We cannot link to copyright infringements (which, apparently, the channel owner doesn't "intend". Ah, legal ignorance). Is the same information available anywhere else or does the clip appear on the DVDs or official website? It would be a shame to lose such an important piece of casting information.

I'm sure if you can get through these issues and give the prose another going over, this will pass GAN fine. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)