Talk:On the Day Before/GA1

GA Review

Okay, so the article's looking pretty good about now. There are quite a few (mostly minor) issues, though.

Unbold quotation marks around episode title.
Spell out 48th/4th per MoS.
He tells Josh – using a sports metaphor – to "throw an elbow" -> use emdashes here.
Leo – among others – suggests he take it -> emdashes as above.
What/who is Abdul Mujib?
Put "Manchester Part II" in quotes.
The West Wing shows were written close to production -> shows or episodes? The whole thing is just one show, right?
Put "Gone Quiet" in quotes.
Maybe specify date of Halloween for those who aren't familiar with the holiday and just for convenience's sake.
"I was kind of paralyzed" said Sorkin -> comma after "paralyzed".
"It was mind-blowing", said Richard Schiff -> comma goes inside quoatation marks.
On August 9, as the actors had just done a cold reading... -> "after the actors..."? Seems to make more sense to me.
Is "president" capitalised? There seems to be a lack of consistency with this, especially in the social/cultural references section. I'd be the wrong person to tell you which is right, so go with whichever you think is right and just make 'em all consistent.
Put "Gaza" in quotes.
Palestinian Authority was changed to Nizar Farad - a fictional character -> a comma seems better than a dash here.
Yet in a previous episode -> normally sentences shouldn't begin with "yet".
Put "In this White House" in quotes.
Yet in a previous episode – episode 26, In this White House – as Sam debates -> emdashes as far above.
It was for this episode – along with War Crimes – that Janel Moloney was nominated -> emdashes.
Link the Emmy category, and maybe change basic Emmy Award link to the Primetime Emmys.
Change "this year" to the actual year - I think this term's already way out of date, if it aired in 2001!
Unfortunately, TV.com and IMDb ratings don't qualify as real reviews because they're just polls given to the public.
For TWoP, give the name of the author and maybe give a comment or two from their review to give a feeling of their general thoughts about the episode.
Can you find any other reviews? Any viewing figures or ratings? The reception section's looking a little sparse.
Neither image is of low resolution; please scale down.

I think that's about it. The article will be on hold for a week for you to make all necessary changes, so good luck! —97198 talk 06:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review, you caught me in quite a bit of sloppy editing! I've made the MOS changes you've suggested. "President" should be capitalised only when used as a title, so: "President Bartlet", but "Bartlet is president". And you're right, I wasn't consistent on this...

Reviews are more of a problem though. I've scoured every source I could think of: trade publications like Variety and Entertainment Weekly, DVD reviews, Google, IMDb, but I haven't been able to find any reviews of individual episodes from this season. I guess seven years is a long time in the digital world (I shudder to think that there was not even a Wikipedia back then...) TWoP give a grade, but apart from that what they contribute is mostly an episode summary. I know that user reviews are considered less reliable than professional reviews, but as it stands, it's either that or nothing, in which case the "Reception" section would look even more sparse. Lampman (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. I do understand where you're coming from with the reception issues but WP:MOSTV does explicitly advise that "IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information" so I'm inclined to think the section would be better sparse than going against reliability. Aside from that, there are just a couple more things I've spotted.

"On the Day Before" is the forty-eight The West Wing episode -> "forty-eighth".
she was up against two of here co-stars -> "her co-stars".
How about "Deborah of Television Without Pity gave the episode a grade 'A'"?

Again, thanks, and good luck. —97198 talk 06:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, again! I've removed TV.com now entirely, as well as the IMDb rating. Lampman (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I'm happy to promote the article ;) —97198 talk 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]