# Talk:A Change Is Gonna Come (Grey's Anatomy)

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Change Is Gonna Come (Grey's Anatomy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done : All issues have been adressed. I really believe you'll find the article as good as I do. Thank you very much for the thorough review! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: (I'm not the reviewer but I noticed a fairly significant problem): Using and citing only three reviews is too weak for a GA, and extrapolating from those that the "Critical response of the episode has been generally positive" is quite a stretch. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlink premiere and interview per WP:OVERLINK

"and the 62nd", the show's?
"Seattle, Washington" how about two separate links
BuddyTV and Cinema Blend should not be in italics.
I am not aware of the guideline. Is it that magazines should be italicized while sites should not? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The alt text of the images are not good. Alt text should summary the actual contents of the image, and not re-hash the image caption.
As Joey said, "Using and citing only three reviews is too weak for a GA, and extrapolating from those that the "Critical response of the episode has been generally positive" is quite a stretch." And, speaking of that, what statement is true, I removed one, but it did say "mixed to positive" then "mixed to negative" which? This is strange. It still says "Critical response of the episode ranged from mixed to negative" in the lede
Now there are seven cited reviews, and a cast member's personal opinion. It now says "mixed to negative" in both the lead in the "Reception" section. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
"negative feedback from television reviews" reviews should be critics
Many references are missing their authors
Could you tell me what references are you talking about? I know there are some, but it's a really difficult process to try to see which ones are missing their authors. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There's quite a few. The easiest way to find them is this: CItations with an author included begin with the author's name. Those that don't begin with the author's name, don't have an author listed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done Some references do not have mentioned authors. I have added the authors for the ones I had omitted. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
TV.com and About.com are not a reliable sources
Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') in references, as per WP:MOS
Ref. 4, remove publisher from it, it is repetitive
Don't "shout" in reference titles, as seen in ref. 7, 9, etc.
Publisher problems with ref. 12, 14
Link IGN and News Corporation in reference
TBrandley 03:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

I'm not sure the casting of Leigh should appear in this article; it should appear in the article about the first episode she appeared in, which was the episode 24 of the third season but since no article on that episode has been created, it could be added to the second episode she was in, which is "Didn't We Almost Have It All?".
The info about Leigh's casting refers only to her promotion to series regular status (occurring in this episode) and her first days of working as main cast member. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did you write in the lead that it was outperformed by CSI? In other Grey's Anatomy articles we just say in the lead how it ranked during the night, detailing the ratings in reception... --Sofffie7 (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we always compare Grey's to CSI as they have been competitors, airing in the same time-slot, for 6 years. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but usually the comparison between TV shows only appears in reception, not in the lead. I just mentioned that to be consistent with other articles... Usually the lead only says the viewership, the ratings in the demographic 19-49 and its rank in terms of viewership, that's it. Sofffie7 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Jonathan, you always extensively compare it to CSI. It's undue weight for the lead, and should be removed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Further, phrases such as "airtime rival" are original research. There are several other shows that it beat out, and picking one and calling it an "airtime rival" is not encyclopedic or NPOV. If you're going to mention CSI, mention the other shows it beat as well. Take Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy) as a good example. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
More comments to be addressed – I have some other issues that should be fixed before Tate lists the article.
"The premiere focused on the aftermath on of the main characters' promotion to residency, following the conclusion of their internship." -- Both "on" and "of" are said before "the main characters'". Only "of" should be used.
"The episode marked Chyler Leigh's promotion to series regular status, following her guest appearances in the last two episodes of the previous season." -- Link "previous season" to season three.
Only actors credited in the opening of the episode should be listed as "guest"; the ones credited at the end are not guest characters; they are background or minor.
 Not done I don't agree, per The X-Files-related episode Good Articles, the Fringe (TV series)-related ones, and the Lost-related ones.
Irrelevant. The issue could have been missed by reviewers, added after promotion, or the reviewers may not have been aware. Please see Template:Infobox television episode#Usage, particularly the sentence that says "Only guest actors in notable roles should be included in the list." Minor/background roles are not considered "guest characters". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Arc" is not synonymous with "story arc". The former is defined as "A part of the circumference of a circle or other curve.", which is not the proper meaning. Please change all instances of "arc" to "story arc".
The apostrophe placement in this sentence: "dealing with the aftermath of Preston Burke (Isaiah Washington)'s departure" is problematic. It should be "Preston Burke's (Isaiah Washington)". I know it sounds weird, but it's the proper way; it was Burke's departure, not Washington's. There are a few more instances of this, so check very carefully.
Also corrected the one for Rebecca Pope (Elizabeth Reaser)! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole second paragraph is one sentence, and it's a giant run-on. Split it up into several different sentences.
"Ranking second in the time-slot and third in the week, the episode garnered a 7.3 Nielsen rating in the 18–49 demographic, seeing a decrease from the previous episode, which received a 8.0 rating." -- Third "for" the week, not "in". Also, it should say "an 8.0 rating", not "a". "8" starts with an A-sound, which is a vowel.
""A Change Is Gonna Come" opens to a voice-over narrative from Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) about change, a highly exploited theme in the episode." -- The additive "highly exploited" is original research.
"Following the conclusion of the internship, Meredith..." -- Don't you mean "their" internship? "The" is ambiguous.
"After failing his post-internship exam in the season three finale, George O'Malley (T.R. Knight) must repeat the internship..." -- Again, "his" internship, not "the".
"Stevens has to deal with her romantic feelings for O'Malley, whose marriage to Torres is being threatened by his yet unexposed affair." -- "Yet" is misplaced. Either erase it entirely, or write "yet to be exposed".
"O'Malley, who finds himself in the unpleasant situation of repeating the internship, quickly gains support in Lexie, who decides not to tell the fellow interns about his failed exam." -- Again with "his internship" not "the".
"Meredith and Derek discuss the repercussions of their breakup, and realize that they can not reconcile. However, the two engage into sexual intercourse, as a manner to express their mutual feelings for the last time." -- "Shepherd" not "Derek" (WP:SURNAME). Also, "cannot" is a compound word and shouldn't be separated, and it's "in sexual intercourse" not "into".
""A Change Is Gonna Come" is the first episode not to feature Washington's character, Burke.[1] Washington was officially fired from the series, following an on-set incident with Knight and Dempsey, which had been in the media attention since the commencement of the production for the third season." -- The first "is" should be "was". Also, link season three.
 Not done Per WP:OVERLINK, season three should only be linked once in the lead and once in the article. It is already linked in the Plot section.Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Must have missed that one; you're correct. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Following the exposure of the argument, Knight publicly disclosed his homosexuality, which led to Washington's issuing an apology statement, regarding his inappropriate use of words during the incident." -- "Washington" should not have an " 's ".
I don't know what you mean. It already does have the " 's ". Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"The controversy later resurfaced when the cast appeared the 65th Golden Globe Awards ceremony, which saw Washington ridiculing homosexuality during an interview, following the statement that denied the occurrence of an on-set incident." -- "Appeared at the GG awards", not "Appeared the GG awards". 
"Leigh offered her insight on her first days working with the main cast of the series, "It was like coming into somebody else's group or circle. It was a little daunting in the beginning. But I have had such a great time." -- The comma before Leigh's quote should be a colon.
 Not done per Over There (Fringe) and Parks and Recreation (season 1), two FAs. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This is on the bubble, so it's ok. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
""A Change Is Gonna Come" was the first episode in two years not to feature the character of Montgomery, due to her portrayer, Walsh, being released from her contract at the conclusion of season three, leaving the series in order to launch the Grey's Anatomy spin-off, medical drama Private Practice." -- A citation to the episode is not sufficient for that claim. The episode does not say that Walsh was released from her contract to launch PP.
"Regarding Meredith's arc, Rhimes felt that she can't deal with all that is expected of her in her relationship with Shepherd, choosing their genuine love as the greatest obstacle in their decision to break up." -- Unless part of a quote, contractions such as "can't" should be avoided. Check carefully for other occurrences.
"Rhimes disclosed that the concept for the plot point was to have the two characters go back to being freidns, as a result of Montgomery's departure." -- "Friends" is misspelled as "freidns".
"Rhimes offered her insight on Lexie's arrival, "Lexie Grey is here now. And she's here to stay. I love that she's a bit of a dork. Being a dork myself, I am fond of the girls with verbal diarrhea. Because it's not easy to keep all your words in, believe me."" -- Again, the comma before the quote should be a colon.
 Not done per reasons mentioned above. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
See above. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Viewed by a total of 20.93 million viewers, the episode is the series' second most-watched season premiere, just behind the third season opener, which had been watched live by 25.41 million American viewers." -- Link the season three premiere to "third season opener".
"In comparison to the previous episode, which was watched by 22.57 million viewers, "A Change Is Gonna Come" made a 1.64% decrease in terms of viewership." -- Where do you get 1.64% from? It's 21%.
"However, the viewership of the episode second in both its time-slot and the entire night, being beaten out by its airtime rival, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation on CBS, which was watched by 25.22 million viewers." -- I believe you mean "ranked second". If anything else beat it out as well, please note.
""A Change Is Gonna Come" garnered a 7.3 Nielsen rating in the 18–49 demographic, ranking second in its time-slot, and third in the week." -- What show beat it in the time-slot? Which two beat it in the week? These are things a reader will look for. Also, as I said above, "third for the week" not "in".
"Chang expressed disagreement with the manner Bailey and Shepherd's characters were dealt with by the writers, feeling that the former's anger should have been targeted as herself, and criticizing the exaggerated exposure of the latter's "first grader emotional maturity"." -- Do you mean "targeted at herself"? 
"Writing for Cinema Blend, Kona Gallagher provided a contrast between this episode at the previous one, noting the ambiguity characteristic in the third season finale, in comparison to the clear storyline presented in "A Change Is Gonna Come"." -- "this episode and the previous one", not "at". Also, "the ambiguous characteristic" not "ambiguity".
In addition to these issues, the remaining ones above should be addressed.
TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way; you did much better with the critical reviews in this article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment

reception" is now way too big as per WP:TVRECEPTION, you will have to find some things to cut out, as said there, "Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible, with editors avoiding vague, non-descriptive claims about an episode (e.g. John Smith felt like Ray Romano was horrible in Everybody Loves Raymond's 50th episode.). Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. If a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article." Remember that this is a big concern that could lead me to failing the article if not addressed. TBrandley 14:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
But wasn't the fact that there were few reviews a problem? Now there are seven cited reviews. Also, the guideline states that there should be about 3-4 sentences per critic, in order to avoid adding undue weight, and I respected that while working. Why do you think is it too big, considering that I have followed the "avoid adding undue weight" guideline? And could you please tell me what do you consider non-descriptive claims? This way I can remove them. Thank you for your concern, though. Unlike some reviewers, you strictly follow the GA criteria and I really really appreciate that. :) Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jonathan. Well, maybe just could down a little bit of the Cinema Blend review, that doesn't really seem too important, and isn't completely reliable, anyways. TBrandley 15:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Jonathan, not to imply anything, but I hope "Unlike some reviewers, you strictly follow the GA criteria" is not directed towards me. To my knowledge, I am the only other GA reviewer you have had, so it leads me to believe that you are in fact talking about me. And if you are, that is ridiculous because all the issues I listed are serious (ie. you misspelled a word and miscalculated a percentage). TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, unless the citation needed tag is addressed, policy mandates a quick fail. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
In addition, the overlinking hasn't been addressed, although it's striked for some reason. Sorry, Jonathan, but you have quite a few issues to take care of. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Why would I direct it towards you? How would your extensive, really long reviews not follow the GA criteria? I have seen so many "good articles" that have passed with a "there are no issues to be addressed". That's what I was talking about! And Overlinking issue are you talking about? No one has mention it. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
As for the song title, I couldn't find any other reference than the one at About.com, which is not considered reliable. What should I do? Just remove it? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that is the only option, see my talk page for rationale. I think everyone needs to relax, and take a deep breathe, per this arguing between you two. See my talk page for more. Regards, TBrandley 18:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with all the remarks mentioned by TRLIJC19, Jonathan. The following terms are the ones mentioned above which should be unlinked: 'emergency room', 'contract', 'lawsuit', 'racism', 'broadcasting media'. I also think 'publicly disclosed' and 'homosexuality' could be unlinked too; everybody knows what homosexuality is. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done
Another thing you still haven't changed is the ratings in the lead. Per other Grey's Anatomy articles that reached the GA status, the ratings in the lead should be brief, meaning you should not mention CSI; just how the episode ranked in the night/in the week. The details belong in the reception. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done
Remaining issues

The song-title reference.
I couldn't find any reference. Therefore, I have deleted the statement. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Mentioning co-stars in the infobox.
There are no co-stars in the infobox, and have never been. There only are guest stars, the ones credited at the beginning of the episode, with a "Guest starring" title. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on A Change Is Gonna Come (Grey's Anatomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2007/06/08/abc-greys-washington.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on A Change Is Gonna Come (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726151647/http://www.tvguide.com/news/grey%27s-anatomy-chyler-42038.aspx to http://www.tvguide.com/news/grey%27s-anatomy-chyler-42038.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513141645/http://www.greyswriters.com/2007/10/shonda-on-the-s.html to http://www.greyswriters.com/2007/10/shonda-on-the-s.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501042023/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329105628/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092606_07 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092606_07
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528010145/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06
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) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Change Is Gonna Come (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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.eonline.com/news/isaiah_washington_fails_anatomy_mad_hell/55346
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528081252/http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Washington%2C_Isaiah/News/?page=2 to http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Washington%2C_Isaiah/News/?page=2
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) 08:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI-generated tag here, as the edits by AlphaBetaGamma123, here and elsewhere, display many indications of likely LLM use (both the signs on the page, and the impossibly quick rewrites they have done in quick succession in their contribs) and thus need review for accuracy, source-to-text integrity, original research, synthesis, other tone issues, etc. (They're blocked for sockpuppeting so cannot weigh in or confirm whether AI was used.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)