This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Last of Us season 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "The Last of Us season 1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | The Last of Us 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | The Last of Us season 1 is the main article in the The Last of Us season 1 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 16, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the budget for the first season of The Last of Us exceeded that of each of the first five seasons of Game of Thrones? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of The Last of Us (TV series) was copied or moved into The Last of Us (season 1) with this edit on February 13, 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Rhain (talk · contribs) 02:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Much of the prose describing episodic detailing has all been previously verified in respective articles. It takes only a glance to recognize such quality. Upon detailed inspection, any other details are written well here as well, and speak without blatant redundancy. Prose in the header section is a summary of key points throughout the article. It does not use citations in the section. This is keystone G/A qualification, and shows a keen representation of subject matter in the article.
Unobviously owned sources have publisher cites. This attention to detail is a contributing factor for why this article should be considered for G/A status. This shows the article goes above and beyond in terms of finer details. A sentiment reflected throughout.
WP:SYNTHESIS is not present, no risqué or unclear sources are used for factual information. Nor is such information boiled together in a melting pot to get to any inaccurate conclusions.
Yes. Fine details from episodes are kept in their appropriate and respective dedicated articles. Such info covered in both is kept broad here, and detailed there. The article makes use of directions to more detailed sources of information, which makes me wonder, "should this be a good topic on its own when the show ends?" Very good development here. I notice a well-done statement of copying. This makes for a good argument that this article not only follows good procedures, but also ties together with other info. This is good. This is G/A material.
All information from here is not trying to push anyone's opinion. Opinions from third-party reviewers are not presented in a factual context, instead as as "two-cents", or input addition to describe topics and subjects (the reactions to them) in detail.
No edit wars appear to have happened here. I see nothing indicating this article has received undue attention. The article had not been protected in more recent or current times to curtail any vandalism, so that main indicator gives no reason for suspicion. This season of the TV series has been done for over a year, so no influx of details is expected to come in.
Standard Blu-Ray cover art as infobox image: This is used under fair use policies, and illustrates the season effectively.
Filming images are tagged from twitter/reddit under fair use. these images illustrate in an informational way nigh-impossible without their inclusion. They are constructive, and therefore do belong.
The Game Awards footage still is from the YouTube broadcast, and is used as illustration appropriately for the promotion section.
Free-use images of actors: there is a number of free-use images of actors.
I want to quote an example here of an infobox image.
This, among other various examples, has WP:OVERREF. Inline cited text supports the claim made here, and is redundant to include in the infobox. These should be removed for ease-of-browsing. This prevails in many places, being widespread enough for this to be a concern.
Also, the critical response section does a good job at citing where guest performers are praised in the text, the block of cite-cite-cite-cite-cite is however redundant and unsightly.
The silliest example of the redundant cites has to be here. The info necessary to cite that these two star is in prose right next to the infobox. 'Tis a very good illustration, but, sheesh! This could do without.
Tend to the WP:OVERREF in the infoboxes. I plan on then passing this review. Good job to everyone who cooked up this article!
I'm passing this. Don't know where Rhain was, but I've gone ahead and done those fixes for WP:OVERREF. BarntToust (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review; I appreciate your kindness and thoroughness. To clarify, image captions should be referenced per WP:WHYCITE, so I've reverted your edits. Regarding Don't know where Rhain was
: it was less than five hours between you finished your review (3 a.m. local time for me, FWIW) and made the edits; reviews with outstanding issues are typically expected to last about seven days per WP:GAN/I#R3. I would have been happy to talk through your concerns here before any action was made, instead of having to catch up afterwards and revert mostly everything. Regardless, thanks again for your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I was definitely jumping the gun there, Rhain. As a wise frog once said, "Patience! Patience!". That's something I'll be tending to regarding myself. As for you: Thanks for your work on clearing up my misconceptions, and for also nom-ing the season and its episodes for a good topic. It's been a pleasure to seal the deal on this good topic so that everyone's work, (including and part by yours), has paid off! With very warm regards, BarntToust (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)