Talk:The Americans/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Ktkvtsh (talk · contribs) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktkvtsh, feel free to make changes and respond to issues as I continue to review the article, no need to wait until I'm finished with a full review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Two big things left - prose review (for me to do) and 3b (breadth) for the nominator. I'll hold off on the prose review until the new material has been incorporated and check the sources there as well. Hopefully we can get this one to GA pretty soon! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for your patience! Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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.	As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made smaller tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just me know. On the whole, the prose is good. The only thing left to fix is that generally you shouldn't have more than 3 citations for a single sentence or passage. Where this is necessary (such as at the start of the Reception section), please use one of the templates found here (Template:Multiple references) to combine them. Will do now. Ktkvtsh (talk)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	No major uncited passages or other issues. Pass.
	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).	Mostly reliable journalistic sources and trade publications (Vox, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc) Is TVLine a reliable source? Also, #9 (Laurie Holden) is a dead link, although archived - please mark the original link as dead or find a replacement. #13 (Canadian Press) should be adjusted to indicate it's a newsagency article via the Toronto Star #14 (DirectTV) the link leads to a generic page Is Collider a reliable source? How does #32 (Tweet) prove the concept that all writers remained with the show throughout? Strikes me as WP:OR. Similar with #35, though this one is better as he directly states she wrote an episode. Still, a secondary source would be much preferred. Upper West Side blog can't be regarded as reliable, replace with a better source. #46 (Newsday) link 404s and should be fixed or marked as dead #47 (SILive) should probably have the Staten Island Advance mentioned somewhere in the cite. Onlocationvacations has a deadlink for the original. Is it a reliable source? #49 (Den of Geek) is missing the author/interviewer Is TV Fanatic a reliable source? #51 (Network Ten) redirects to a generic page, fix or mark as dead #56 (ITV) link is similarly dead, fix or mark as dead. In general please check that the original links work. I know almost all of them are archived, but if they 404 or redirect, they should be marked as such (there's a parameter to do so in the citation template). Is TVShowsonDVD.com a reliable source? Is citing sellers/marketplaces like Amazon or Blu-ray.com typical for DVD releases? #95 (Brunner) a link would be great if findable Is The Playlist a reliable source? There's no consensus on reliability for Business Insider (WP:BI) but the way it's used here for critical opinion I think it's fine. AGF that remaining minor issues will be taken care of, pass source review. Nice work by nominator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC) New sources checked, all good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, issue mentioned above addressed re: tweet, no other problems.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig flags a number of longer quotes; no copyvios there as they are attributed. However the descriptions in this passage are borrowed and copyvio and should be rephrased asap: as experience with Russian plays and was an accent coach. General Zhukov was played by a Polish actor. Annet Mahendru, who played Nina, has a Russian mother and speaks six languages. Hold for manual spot check. No issues found by spot check, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, no problems.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The reception sections by season are generally fine but perhaps slightly overdetailed. Is there any academic writing on The Americans or more in-depth work that could be used to provide a perspective on all seasons together? I think it might be worth combining the Seasons 1-5 reception into 1 slightly shorter section, and pulling out some material to start a new 'Themes' subsection that talks about the series as a whole. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC) I agree. Will work on this. Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)  Done and I will work on developing a themes section in my sandbox. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed, pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Removed one thing during prose review, otherwise fine - pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, issues on talk page have been settled, no expansions/rewrites in progress, pass.
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.	One fair use, one CC2.0 (Flickr), both fine. Checked newly added images, all fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Just two images is a little sparse for an article of this length, but I get why it might be tough to find others. Still, any additions would be helpful if possible. Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comment: For images, would images of some of the actors under the cast and characters section be appropriate for 6b? If so, I can go ahead and do that. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

2b

@Ganesha811 I am working on fixing issues you mention in 2b. Will you be able to use my detailed edit summaries on the article to see what is done or should I mention it all here? Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries are fine, you can also come back here and just say "all done" or "all done except this one where I disagree with you" etc etc. It's a flexible process. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You can also reply directly within the table, or cross off items as you address them, whatever works best for you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Collider reliable?

While Collider is mostly opinionated in various articles, the article used for The Americans is just about entirely interview and gives full question and answer quotes. While not every article from Collider could be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia, I believe this specific article can. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

6b Images

Multiple images have been added. Please let me know if it is not enough or too many. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The number is fine but I would make them smaller and combine them into one or two multiple image templates. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

TVShowsonDVD reliable?

Yes, I believe TVShowsonDVD.com is reliable here and gives accurate information regarding the show being released on DVD. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? Why is it reliable per Wikipedia's standards? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable source per Wikipedia standards because it was well-regarded for its accurate and comprehensive reporting on television series releases on DVD and Blu-ray. The site operated with strong industry connections and was even affiliated with TV Guide from 2007 until it ceased operations in 2018, making its historical content a trustworthy reference for information up to that date. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair! Thanks for explaining. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

2b Tweets

Removed two tweets. They statements were both double sourced so removing the tweets won't leave them unsourced. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

2d

I rephrased the portion mentioned here. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

TV Fanatic reliable?

I think that TV Fanatic can be seen as reliable here as the source is a word for word interview. I feel that this is the same case as with Collider. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's acceptable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

DVD release dates

I admit I am not entirely sure about what would be reliable for dvd release dates. I found this site here. I wanted to say Amazon is reliable, but I see now that the dates on the source and the date in the article don't match.

The entire home release section is sourced by Amazon or Bluray. Do you recommend I remove the entire section or would dvdreleasedates.com work? Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing it for now. If there are reliable secondary sources that mention the show came out on DVD, that could be mentioned in a general way. In the end it's not the most important detail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

3b (reception)

@Ktkvtsh: As someone who has been editing this article since its inception (over a decade), I find your trim of the reception section to be absurd; you turned a 2000+ word section into literally just over 100 words. You deleted roughly 70 references from reliable sources and completely eliminated the accolades section, and left the reception section with just 4 references. The series spanned 6 seasons and 75 episodes, its reception section shouldn't just be 100 words. The GA reviewer wrote the section is "slightly overdetailed" and that could it be a "slightly shorter section". The original version of the section could be trimmed, but what you did was beyond overkill and detrimental to the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts I will undo my edit. Can you work on trimming it down? My apologies. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have more some free time coming up in the next few days, so I'll definitely get it done then. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts, @Ktkvtsh, thanks for the work to compress the season-by-season review sections. When do you estimate you'll be done working on the 'Reception' section, including adding/editing some content on themes across the series? It'd be good to wrap up this review in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, that is up to @Drovethrughosts. When would you like to see it done by? If they are not available to, then I will. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done what I thought what necessary to trim the reception section (anything else feels like overkill and detrimental to the article's quality), but if you're looking for something else to be done, can you be specific please? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

From a GA perspective, I think it would be valuable to add a section, perhaps a paragraph or two, covering the show's overall themes and ideas, as described by sources. Some of that material could be found in the season-by-season review sections; other parts will have to be pulled from other sources. I'm fine with either/both of you creating it, whoever has availability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I will work on this today. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

For inspiration, you can check out the similar sections at Dark Angel, Pride & Prejudice, The Simpsons, or Thunderbirds (all featured articles). —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added it. Please let me know what you think. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks good! Was there anything about parenthood in the sources you looked at? I think the section could stand to be expanded by a few sentences. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Grouping sources

@Ganesha811, I attempted to group them but it did not turn out right. I'm not sure how to use the grouping templates properly. What do you suggest I do? I could remove some of the excessive sources for the area you mentioned, or could you assist me in using the template? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You could ask for assistance at the WP:Teahouse or the WP:Help desk, or just pick another template to try. If that doesn't work let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok will do. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)