Talk:Spellingg Bee

Spellingg Bee received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Spellingg Bee 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.
Review: June 5, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage 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 articles
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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Aspect ratio (image)#1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.77:1, 1.78:1 and 16:9 standard widescreen|1.78:1 aspect ratio]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Editing Required

Someone please edit this for guest stars and names of supporting characters.

Notice of Psych episode article review

The individual episode articles for Psych are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of Psych episodes#Episode article review. Thanks. -- Jack Merridew 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spellingg Bee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give this one a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I completely forgot about this! Reviewing now. :) Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was one duplicate link, so I fixed it.

Lead: As seen in some of the television GAs, the start of the second paragraph generally has a brief description of the show itself as an intro for those not familiar with it. For example, Turf War (The Office) has "The series—presented as if it were a real documentary—depicts the everyday lives of office employees in the Scranton, Pennsylvania, branch of the fictional Dunder Mifflin Paper Company." It would be beneficial if there could be a brief sentence to summarise what Psych is before the "In this episode,".

Reception: The MOS for quotes requires citations to be placed directly after the most immediate punctuation. I'll copy the section here and insert (cite) where there needs to be citations:

In his review for IGN, contributor Colin Moriarty heavily criticized the episode, calling it "unintentionally lackluster".(cite) While Moriarty considered Hill to portray Gus well, he considered Juliet O'Hara and Carlton Lassiter's characters "rather forgettable" and stated that "neither character has any traits that make them interesting in the least".(cite) He considered the show to be "admittedly in a difficult spot".(cite) Moriarty criticized the show's police force, calling it "possibly miscast".(cite) He called the episode "mildly entertaining and mildly boring" and that the show is "not looking too good".[20] The installment was given a rating of 6, or "okay",(cite) tying it for the lowest rated episode of the season, with the following episode, "Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece".[21] In an article for The New York Times, journal Bill Carter mentions that after just the two episodes, "USA Network seems to have found another drama hit with 'Psych'".[22] In his review for AOL TV, writer Richard Keller gave the episode a mixed to positive review, calling the installment "pretty unique",(cite) but that it also had its flaws. He enjoyed the fact that the episode revealed the relationship between Shawn and Henry, that it "reflects the relationship many of us have with our own fathers".(cite) He also enjoyed the "fleshing out" of Gus's character,(cite) that "we now see Gus as quite the brainiac" and "rather than saying nothing but 'No, Shawn'... Gus actually contributes quite a bit to this episode".(cite) However, Keller also criticized parts of the episode, saying that he disliked the "whole fake psychic concept".(cite) Keller also criticized Timothy Osmundson's character Carlton Lassiter, saying "he just doesn't fit into the whole show", and "Omundson's makes Lassiter look like a cartoon character".[23]

I've added a missing category. That should be pretty much it really! Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short description of the show to the second paragraph of the lead, and added the citations everywhere I though needed it in the reception. Thanks for the review. I don't mind you forgot, just glad that someone actually reviewed one of my articles for once. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'd neglected to check the dabs and the external links, but I did that just now and they're all dandy. So this one is good to go for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spellingg Bee. 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/20130525033743/http://www.namic.com/press/pressreleases/NAMICVANomsRls012307_FINAL.pdf to http://www.namic.com/press/pressreleases/NAMICVANomsRls012307_FINAL.pdf

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) 00:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]