# Talk:Normal Is the Watchword

Image:Veronica Mars 2x01 026.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Normal Is the Watchword/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 04:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this one. Comments should come soon. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
A few suggestions that you might like to ponder:

Lead
It summarizes well the article and is accessible to readers who are not familiar to the series;
You don't need to call Rob Thomas by his full name twice; and you shouldn't repeat the interlink.
done
Synopsis
I know in English language it's preferable to have short sentences than long ones. However, I guess the first two ("It is one day before senior year. Veronica is working a job at a restaurant.") can be reduced into something like "One day before senior year, Veronica is working a job at a restaurant.";
done
"Veronica sees an interview with her father" - you could add his name, because I was wondering who was Keith until reading the MTV source;
done
"We then flash back" - I think we should not use "we" per MOS:FIRSTPERSON, and it also sounds a bit informal. How about something like "The episode then flash backs"?;
done
Ehr, "flashes back" is better hehe... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
cliffhanger should be linked here (because it's its first occurrence), not in "Arc significance"
done
"Next thing Logan knew, he woke up..." - I would replace the comma with a colon, or add "is that", or perhaps remove "Next thing Logan knew" and use something like a "then";
done
"Wallace (Percy Daggs III) says that he failed his drug test too and that Meg (Alona Tal) also failed her test." - Can I suggest "Wallace (Percy Daggs III) says that he and Meg (Alona Tal) also failed their drug test too."?;
done
"we flash back to show the details" - the same from another suggestion;
done
"Veronica talks to Meg, with whom she has had a falling out." - "Falling out" should be avoided per WP:IDIOM;
'Replaced with estranged
"Logan hangs out with Dick" - The same from above, although I guess it's more difficult to replace this one;
Replaced with sunbathed--that's what they're doing
"Veronica talks to Meg one more time, but she is still passive-aggressive" - worth a link to Passive-aggressive behavior?;
done
WP:TVPLOT recomends 200 to 500 words. There are, however, 610, according to this site.
@Gabriel Yuji: I've cut it down to 540, but this episode has a relatively complex plot that also functions as a kind of ending to the first season finale. BenLinus1214talk 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hm, ok. I think that's acceptable. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Arc significance
Not a common section on episode's article. I can't remember if there's some guideline on it so I would have to ponder more to say it's not valid. However, if you feel it's relevant I'd consider "demoting" it as I remember Doctor Who episodes usually have a similar section titled "Continuity" (see: Boom Town (Doctor Who) or The Rings of Akhaten, for examples).
This seems to be a common comment. I'll remove. BenLinus1214talk 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Music
Not sure if the information of section is even relevant. However, if you think it's, it should definitely be moved, as MOS:PARAGRAPHS says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".
I'll move it to production. BenLinus1214talk 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Production
You don't need to repeat Reid's full name;
done
You don't need capital letters on "the shocker";
done
"which slipped past the UPN censors" - WP:IDIOM;
done
"Rob Thomas informed actor Teddy Dunn" - only "Thomas" is enough / WP:Repeatlink for Dunn (already linked in the "Synopsis");
done'
"planning to write out the character" - WP:IDIOM;
done
I'd reorder it a bit; I'd group the parts about the second season ("When it was renewed..." and "Starting in the second season ... would be the perfect retort"), the parts about the episode's title ("The episode was originally titled..." and "The episode's title refers..."), and the information about cast and crew of the episode ("The episode was written by ...  in the part", the cameo part, and "The cast members did not know..."). It's up to you but I guess it would be somewhat more logical.
done Oddly, I got most of this information after I first published the article, so that's probably why it's a bit jumbled. BenLinus1214talk 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Reception
"However, this ratings high would be surpassed by 'One Angry Veronica'." - Source?;
done
I noticed it's a common practice to add Television Without Pity's scores in television episodes (not only within VM episodes), so if you think it's fine you can keep it. However, I wonder how it improves the article quality or gives the reader some useful information…
The way I see it, it's just another review-esque rating from a notable online publication, so I think I'll keep it. :) BenLinus1214talk 03:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Veredict
The article is well written and well sourced, and it's very close to GA. My concerns are usually minor stuff related to prose and some guidelines. Two sections feel somewhat unnecessary and if I would have to elect a "major" problem it would be the plot, which is over 100 words (which is not that much) the recommended. Nice job, Ms! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I believe I have answered all of your comments. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns! :) BenLinus1214talk 03:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, BenLinus1214, I've just passed it. Congratulations! (PS: On a last note, I'd only like to ask you for some consistency on italicizing publications. The A.V. Club, TV.com, Television Without Pity are, while PopMatters, BuzzFeed, and TVLine are not. What was your rationale on using or not italics?) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, probably all web-only publications should not be italicized. BenLinus1214talk 12:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Normal Is the Watchword. 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/20081209064049/http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20050928_veronica.11a78ce9.html to http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20050928_veronica.11a78ce9.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512181500/http://www.wga.org/wga-awards/previous-nominees-winners.aspx to http://www.wga.org/wga-awards/previous-nominees-winners.aspx
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) 23:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)