Talk:Grey's Anatomy season 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grey's Anatomy season 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Grey's Anatomy season 1 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 5, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
May 15, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
May 28, 2012	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / Grey's Anatomy Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Grey's Anatomy task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Template

I was wondering if Grey's Anatomy has it's own template for each episode. It doesnt work, for some reason.

Sli723 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Sli723[reply]

Yes, can't we create a format similar to Prison Break? One page has about a couple of lines for each episode (list of prison break episodes and a link to another page for that episode (eg. Pilot (Prison Break episode)). *_* 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode descriptions removed

I removed the episode descriptions since they were largely copied from http://www.onlygreysanatomy.com/greys_anatomy_season1.html AxelBoldt 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the episodes descriptions back in. I personally wrote several of the more detailed episode descriptions for season 3 and you can check my contributions if necessary. A lot of work goes into these summaries, especially getting the various medical conditions and patients' names right. I don't mind people posting my work on other sites, but to jump the gun and assume that the version on Wikipedia is plagiarized is rather irresponsible. I cannot and will not claim credit for the summaries written for seasons 1 and 2, but I'm sure the author(s) spent much time and effort on them as well. Hence, I'm reinstating the summaries for all seasons. Intone 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted notices to the copyvio problems board, and blanked the summaries until this is able to be checked, the summaries are spot on to the site, I will not speculate, personally, but appear they were written by the same person.--unsigned

I suggest you read this. It's quite clear they are the infringing website, not Wikipedia. Matthew 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey's Anatomy (season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing. TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read through the article and list any existent issues below. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

In the first paragraph in the lead, in this sentence "The season initially served as a mid-season replacement for the legal drama Boston Legal, airing in the Sunday night timeslot at 10.00, after Desperate Housewives.", instead of '10.00', it should say '10:00'. Note the colon.

Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence in crew should be referenced.

Not sure The information in the "Crew" subsection is displayed on the screen at beginning or the end of an episode. Isn't that a trustworthy source? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well if you really can't find one then that will work. Just cite a footnote to the bottom explaining that. If you don't know how then let me know and I'll do it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss. Please, give me a hand. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added the footnote citation for you. If you'd like to see it, press here.

Thank you for your help. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of 'Ratings', where it says "and was ranked the ninth is viewership", it should say "and was ranked the ninth in viewership".

Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades has no references. Every sentence in accolades should be referenced.

Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expand critical response. Research everything until you find more critical reviews.

Idea: There is not enough information for a subsection at "Critical response", so I suggest we merge "Critical response" with "Accolades". Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched through the archives of Google? Dissected many articles around the internet? You can't just look at one website such as Metacritic or the Grey's Anatomy page's Critical reception section. You have to search everywhere. It can take a while. If you truly have done that, and there are no more reviews on the internet, then merge the sections. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Of course I have. I have been in front of my laptop for hours. I will keep searching until I find something worthwhile. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have expanded the "Critical response" subsection. I have finally found some reviews. I hope it's enoguh. However, I still think we should merge "Critical response" and "Accolades". What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that's plenty of information. Good job. TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References 16-19 (The ones you added to Accolades) don't even show the link. They all need to be fully expanded.

Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence of Accolades is not referenced.

Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the review on hold so the nominator can assess the problems. Please fix these issues within seven (7) days and then I'll continue on with the review. If these issues are not fixed within the limit, then the nomination will unfortunately have to be failed. To make it easier for me, I would prefer that after you fix each issue, you put the "done" template ( Done) ({{done}}) after it or the "not done" ( Not done) ({{notdone}}) template but explaining why you didn't make the change. Looking forward to finishing the review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed all the issues you noted. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Since all outstanding issues have been addressed, the article now meets the good article criteria and I'm happy to sign it off. Great job to the nominator for all your hard work on the review and article. Happy editing! TRLIJC19 (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing and promoting this article! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grey's Anatomy (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sagawards.com/PR_060129.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grey's Anatomy (season 1). 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:

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) 10:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey's Anatomy (season 1). 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/20090515034229/http://www.greyswriters.com/2005/11/from_shonda_rhi.html to http://www.greyswriters.com/2005/11/from_shonda_rhi.html

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) 22:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]