Talk:Mr. Monk and the Airplane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mr. Monk and the Airplane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "In this episode, Monk solves a case in an airport." Expand?
  • I really don't know how to add without going on spoilers. "Monk solves a murder case involving a man and his mistress in an airplane"? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be fine to put some stuff that occurs later in the episode per WP:SPOILER. However, if you do not want to, what would make it flow better is to add some background to him solving the case on the plane. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to keep the spoilers in the appropriate section, you know? I've added a bit anyway. Take a look. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, replace one of the "it's" with the title of the episode.
Plot
  • I think it should be "practical nurse"--pratical isn't a word.
  • "Meanwhile, Bernard turns up dead, supposedly due to a heart attack but Monk is not so sure." Informal
  • "Stefan and his mistress murdered Barbara" is this his speculation, or is this proved to be true at that point in the episode?
  • For consistency, either refer to her as "Barbara" or "Chabrol"--I would prefer Barbara.
  • In fact, it refers to Stefan but I changed to reflect it because both have the same last name. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • No comma in the first sentence.
  • "over the setting" probably add "for the episode."
  • Comma between "plane" and "but"
  • Any details on what the "Pete and Repeat" joke is?
  • No. I guess I had no childhood. :) Anyways, if it's common, it can just stay. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Garry Marshall himself created Warren Beach's trademark line" This is a bit of an abrupt transition, and I don't know from this whether he's a one-off guest star, recurring character, etc.
  • It's better, but there's a sentence structure error--either change it to "Another guest star" and keep the comma, or keep it as "other guest star" and drop the comma. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "among his three favorite episodes" of what? The season? The series? The year?
  • I honestly think that you can include more parts of all the reviews, as this will expand the reception section and give a clearer idea of all the reviews.
  • Well, I think I squeezed everything I could. Suggestions? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much a matter of squeezing in stuff as it is actually fleshing out the opinion of each reviewer. To be clearer on some of each one's main points, you could read the reviews and then quote or summarize some of the most important parts. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With "squeezed" I meant I've extracted the most of the sources. I really feel this way. Let's see: Bianculi (a) discuss more the show itself so most of it is not worth mentioning; McDonough basically only describes its plot and guest stars; TelevisionWeek comments more on the background of the episode than the episode itself; Smith is reviewing the third season opening and he only uses "Airplane" to compare it with "Manhattan"; Hicks is reviewing season 1 DVD and has only one mention to "Airplane"; Bianculli (b) and Press also only do one mention to it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more information surrounding the Emmy?

@Gabriel Yuji: Looks good! Just a few things to do before I can pass. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johanna. My replies are above. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: Nice work! I can pass now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Good article, lede[edit]

"Good article"? The writing is poor. FIRST SENTENCE: delete 'overall' (it's the 1st season, fps). 3rd sentence, "obligated" is plain wrong (she let him CHOOSE to fly OR STAY). NEXT sentence, "guest starred several actors" is BAD. It guest starred several *FAMOUS/Well-Known/Star* actors. (The aunty says, "Isn't he famous?!" Monk: "He's *some kind* of actor." IRONY/SARCASM) Also, actors are linked too often. Sadsaque (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mr._Monk_and_the_Airplane&oldid=1203363299"