Wikipedia

Talk:Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleGoing, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy) 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2012Good article nomineeListed
October 4, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that prior to the broadcast of Grey's Anatomy's season nine premiere, ABC asked Patrick Dempsey to remove a spoiler photo from his Twitter?
Current status: Good article

Final sentence of lead

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello all. Darrenhusted has a problem with the last sentence of the lead (Critics generally regarded "Going, Going, Gone" as disconsolate.). He doesn't seem to understand that it's perfectly acceptable to summarize how critics felt about a television episode. Using an actual adjective written by critics is unnecessary and somewhat redundant. FA's and other quality articles often say things such as "the episode was negatively received" or "the episode was positively received" to sum up the episode. This one was looked upon as sad by critics, so it is summarized as such. You obviously don't need to cite a summary of the critical reviews. The evidence is in the Critical reviews section, where almost every critic acknowledged the episode as sad. "Sad" is not a strong enough term, as judged in the FAC, so the synonym 'disconsolate' is more appropriate. Opinions? Also, Darrenhusted, leave the article as is, because when something is under discussion, the article remains as is until you can get consensus for your change. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The 'critical response' section makes it clear that critics have described the episode as "sad", although a source may be required for clarification if some are questioning it. However, there is a pretty clear convention for the placement of references, typically only applied in an article's body for valid reasons. I'll remain neutral for now. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

None of the critics use the word 'disconsolate', and while that might sum up the opinions of the critics concerned (in the same way that bad reviews may be called bad, or mixed reviews maybe called mixed) no one critic uses that word, not does it adequately reflect the opinions of the critics as to the quality of the episode (which is usually what is summed up by critics of films and television). And while ledes can be reference free if any user asks for references then quoting policy isn't enough to justify a summation by a user in lieu of a reference. If you want a policy then how about OWN? TRLIJC19, you don't own the article. In the lede it would be more appropriate to say that critics praised the episode or found it to be a terrible episode rather than attempt to (in your own words) sum up the mood. If you want to choose some of the words used by the critics and tag each with a reference (which would be the same used later in the article) then I would be fine with that; what doesn't seem correct is summing up in your own words and not using any reference. I removed it rather than tag it with a CN because the rest of the article is fine, that one sentence needs looking at. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy). 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:

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) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy). 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:

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) 19:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy). 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:

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) 14:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Going,_Going,_Gone_(Grey%27s_Anatomy)&oldid=1207286512"