Talk:Episode 4 (Twin Peaks)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Episode 4 (Twin Peaks)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fine
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

• Gordon Cole - A target?

  Target? GRAPPLE X 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Like a link to Gordon Cole

  Ah, I get you now. Done. GRAPPLE X 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• "the two are having an affair and planning to burn down the town's sawmill." - How are the two events related?

  Pretty much every interaction between the two concerns both; they're in bed together talking about the sawmill, or they're cooking the books and having it off. There's no real causality in it, though, as far as I can tell. I could try to make things clearer if you'd like. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• "confiscate the surgery's files to find who owns any birds." - Pardon?

  Reworded a little; it's a tricky thing to convey since things like "patient" or "client" surely refer to the animals and not the owners. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Confused by "surgery". Is that used as a location in American English? Perhaps "office's files"

  Hmm, not sure about AmEng; I'd certainly use it (a local doctor or vet, like a General practitioner, would work from "a surgery"). I've changed it to "practice". GRAPPLE X 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Oxford says that's BrE.

• Standardise: Madeline or Maddy

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• The Wild Wild West, Mayberry R.F.D. and The Fugitive - Contextual information for the uninitiated? Don't forget, Wild Wild West and The Fugitive may be remembered for the films (one good, the other a snark buffet)

  Added the "1960s television series" bit from the lead to the other mention. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• May 3 or May 5?

  3rd; not sure where I got 5th from. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• From this revision

• FN21 Fine, checks out
• FN23 Fine, checks out

Further discussion

Thanks for your review; I believe I've seen to everything mentioned thus far. Let me know if there's anything else; and check this show out if you haven't already (though by now you probably know how it turns out). GRAPPLE X 18:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I think that's it. I gave a light copyedit too so be sure to double check. Passing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Episode 4 (Twin Peaks). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829094336/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/twin-peaks/episode-four.php to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/twin-peaks/episode-four.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)