Talk:No More Good Days

No More Good Days was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lloyd Simcoe[edit]

I'm concerned about the sentence "The main character in the book is Lloyd Simcoe, the scientist who created the flash-forward." in the article. This is because if you are watching just the TV series and don't know the book, you have no clue about what caused the Flash Forward, and you shouldn't have. (I'm watching in Sweden, we're at the 3rd episode right now.) Seeing this sentence in the article, this spoils the whole thing a bit. It may be that the TV adaption changed what caused the Flash Forward, but anyway now I have the feeling that I have to closely watch this Lloyd guy, keeping in the back of my head that he may be some scientist or/and be responsible for the whole thing. I suggest removing that sentence. 130.243.191.145 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:No More Good Days/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Frickative 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally a good article, just some minor issues which I think can be quickly dealt with, so I'll put it on hold for now.

General:

The fair-use rationale of the infobox image identifies it as cover art. I'm inclined to think this isn't the case - I can't find anything suggesting the pilot episode had an individual DVD release, and if it did it should be mentioned in the article. If it's a screenshot or a promotional image, the FUR should reflect that, because for instance: "Source - The cover art can or could be obtained from the distributor" is clearly erroneous if it's not a DVD cover.
Done Per [1], quite a few of the references change path. It's a minor issue and not one that will keep the article from being promoted, but as they could potentially become dead links at any time, it would be nice if they could be updated.
Done A couple of the refs don't link to the wiki articles on their sources - can you wikilink Digital Spy at least on its first occurence, the Animation World Network, CraveOnline for ComingSoon.net and TV Overmind, and also the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board for the UK ratings? The BARB source automatically points to the most recently archived ratings, so it may be beneficial to include 'w/e 4 Oct 2009' in the title parameter, to indicate under which date the information in the article is archived.
Done Redlinks: Can you link Agent Vreede to List of minor FlashForward characters#Agent Vreede and Dylan Simcoe to Flashforward#Recurring characters? Also, given that Lennon Wynn is a child actor who has only appeared in 4 minor roles over the course of her career, I'd suggest it's unlikely she's notable enough to have an article created about her - making the redlink unnecessary - but your opinion may differ.
Done It might be beneficial to link the IMDb page for the episode [2] under 'External links'.

Lead:

The lead secton doesn't adequately summarise the article as a whole. It should ideally also summarise the Production and Release sections per WP:LEAD.
Done "No More Good Days" is the first episode of the first season of FlashForward and the series premiere. - There's a bit of redundancy there - suggest "No More Good Days" is the series premiere of the American television series FlashForward or similar.
Done It's probably worth wikilinking Los Angeles and FBI Agent on first occurence for context.
Done blackouts were worldwide - blackouts occurred worldwide for clarity? Just personal preference, no problem if you think it's fine as it is.
Done or in Demetri's case, lack of one - at this point in the article we have no indication of who Demetri is, so I'd be inclined to re-word the sentence as FBI Agent Mark Benford and a team of agents in Los Angeles begin gathering clues as to what might have happened as they struggle to come to terms with their own visions, or lack thereof.
Done Is there any particular reason Mark Benford is wikilinked in the lead, but Janis Hawk isn't?

Plot overview:

Length is fine, but there's a slight chronology issue. I've seen the episode so I understand the sequence of events, but reading the first and second paragraph, it makes it seem that the blackout happens, and then the characters just go about their daily lives. Slight bit of rewording might be necessary to indicate that some of the events of the second paragraph precede the crash in the first.
Done Bryce Varley (Zachary Knighton) prepares to put a bullet in his brain down at the beach - this is rather more colloquial than I'd like, Bryce Varley (Zachary Knighton) prepares to commit suicide by shooting himself at the beach?
Done FBI Partner - Partner doesn't require the capital 'p'.
Bryce finds himself alive and offering to help save the lives of surfers lost at sea - minor quibble, this makes it sound that the two are simultaneous, whereas doesn't he actually find himself alive, and then attempt to save surfers?
Done turned back to the booze - again, colloquial - resumed drinking alcohol?
Done believing that he'll be dead in six months - very minor, but try to avoid contractions wherever possible. he will would be preferable.
Done She tells him he'll be okay, and he refers to her by name, even though she doesn't know him. - as with the above, re: contractions.
Done with a man she doesn't recognise - same again.
Done At the end of the episode, Charlie gives her dad Mark a bracelet she made for him. He looks alarmed: the bracelet is the same one he saw in his flash forward. Are their visions already coming true? - I dislike the phrasing of this, mostly because of the question. Something akin to At the end of the episode, Charlie gives Mark (as the summary has already established he's her father) a bracelet she made for him. Mark is alarmed: the bracelet is the same one he saw in his flash forward, indicating that the visions may be coming true.

Production

DoneI've edited to tweak some of the wording I found slightly awkward in this section, rather than quibble every point individually [3]. Of course, feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
DoneThe Animation World Network reference refers to the story originating in The Hollywood Reporter - any chance you can find and use that rather than reply on second-hand reporting? Not a major deal if not, as THR might not encompass all the background detail mentioned in the paragraph, but it's worth a quick search.
DoneIt might make more sense to place the sentence about ABC considering coupling the series with Lost after the section talking about HBO passing it over and ABC winning the bidding war.
DoneThe sentences about Monaghan's casting are unreferenced, can you remedy this?

Release

Done A better heading for this section might be 'Broadcast and reception', given that it wasn't "released" the same way as a film or DVD might be, rather just aired on TV. YMMV, however.
Donewith a 7.7/13 overall household rating - I usually find it handy to pipe link 'household rating' to Nielsen ratings, as international readers are probably not familiar with the concept.
Done CTV bought the rights for the series in May, 2009, while it was not known at that time what channel it would air at on the CTV television network. - I'd change "while" to "though" but that's a minor point -
eight months on, is this now known? It would be good to clarify, if it is.
Done Gina Bellafante of The New York Times found the premiere "Like so many contemporary television thrillers, FlashForward works just as powerfully as a domestic drama as it does as a mechanism of apocalyptic intrigue". - This is really awkward wording. Suggest rewording as found the premiere to work "just as powerfully as a domestic drama as it does as a mechanism of apocalyptic intrigue".
Done San Francisco Chronicle reviwer Tim Goodman said, If you like big-screen-level thrills and complicated plot structures, you'll opt-in to FlashForward. And you'll be rewarded. Here's hoping it stays strong and compelling as it heads to April 29." - Reviwer is a typo, and you need to open the quote before If you like... Also italicize FlashForward.
Paige Wiser from the Chicago Sun-Times was overall positive towards the premiere episode, comparing it to the likes of another ABC series, entitled Lost. You've already talked about Lost in the article, so this sounds overly formal. How about just - comparing it to another ABC series, Lost.?
Done on the other hand is fairly colloquial, I'd just use "however".
In their review, Philadelphia Daily News, was not pleased with the outcome comparing it to the pilot episode of Lost. Saying "No More Good Days" felt "more like deja vu, with characters who could've been rounded up from a disaster miniseries". - A few things here - the PDN as an entity isn't reviewing the episode, Ellen Gray is. You could use a comma after "outcome" and rather than start a new sentence with "Saying", consider letting it run as one sentence, eg: comparing it to the pilot episode of Lost and commenting that "No More Good Days" felt "more like...

And that's everything! From the length of the review it may seem as though I've flagged up a lot, but I do feel that these are all very minor issues for the most part, easily taken care of, so I'll put the article on hold for now. And just to re-iterate, a lot of the suggestions re: wording of specific sentences are just a matter of personal opinion, so if there are any you disagree with just say so, and I certainly won't try and steamroller my own preferences through :) Frickative 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Thanks for all your work on the article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Good work on bringing the prose up to scratch.

B. MoS compliance:
The lead still needs to be expanded in compliance with WP:LEAD to summarise the important aspects of the whole article. It should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the entire article, but at the moment the majority is plot summary.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
The fair use rationale still needs to be altered to provide a proper representation - it's not cover art, the licensing identifies it as a screenshot, and the FUR needs to reflect this and properly attribute its source.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm quite happy to leave this on hold for a while longer, if the outstanding issues can be addressed. The lead shouldn't take much work to expand, and if you're unsure about fixing the image's fair use rationale, it might help to have a look at the FURs for screenshots in other episode articles. These two, for example, are both from FA-class articles, so using them as a guide would be a good way to go: File:SouthPark-Volcano.jpg, File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg. Frickative 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the outstanding issues have not been addressed, this article has unfortunately failed its GA review. Any editor looking to renominate it in the future should address the remaining concerns before doing so. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Frickative 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]