# Talk:Left Behind (The Last of Us)

@Rhain: and other gentle readers, I invite you to weigh in on a topic of the gravest world-shaking importance; the possessive case of an organization with a plural name. In this edit, User:Rhain reverted my correction of "the Fireflies's violent philosophies" to "the Fireflies' violent philosophies", restoring the "Fireflies's" wording, and citing MOS:'S. I'm pretty sure Rhain is wrong here, and it should just be "Fireflies'". MOS:'S specifically states "For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings)." Now "Fireflies" is the name of a group, which MOS:'S is not clear on, but I contend that it is still a plural noun for this purpose. Let me cite three examples from that most authoritative of sources, "a quick web search I did just now":

Plural Possessive Examples: The Simpsons’ spaceship (the spaceship belongs to the Simpson family; you make the family name plural to show that you’re referring to all of the family members)
For plural, proper nouns that are possessive, use an apostrophe after the 's': "The Eggles' presentation was good." The Eggles are a husband and wife consultant team.)
Consider the following exemplary company names: Texas Coffee Grounders ... Should one reference the possessive form of any of the above company names, where should the apostrophe be placed? E.g. Texas Coffee Grounders's head office is based in Houston. ...or... Texas Coffee Grounders' head office is based in Houston. A: I would say the second example was correct. A: ... Grounders' - Because you don't say 'Grounderses' when you read it out aloud. Refer to The Penguin Guide to Punctuation by RL Trask.
--GRuban (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No discussion for a month, I'm going to be bold again and restore it. --GRuban (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Left Behind (The Last of Us)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Butlerblog (talk · contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rhain: I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Will you be available over the next day or so to address any comments/questions/issues?  ButlerBlog (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in excellent shape. It is well written, shows attention to detail, and overall, it's a Good Article!
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Prose is clear and concise.  There are a few minor points where I might have broken off a phrase to a new sentence instead of a semicolon, but that's only based on personal taste.  I had no trouble reading the article and found no spelling or grammar issues.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
All expected sections per TV MOS are there.  Good use of infobox.  Lead section appropriately covers what's in the article, without detail in the lead that isn't in the body.  I did not see any style issues such as weasel words.  Certainly no unnecessary lists.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
References area is per the styleguide.  Standard inline citation style is used.  All citations appear to be complete.  No problems there.  As near as I could tell, every citation includes an archive link - good job planning ahead.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Everything is cited.  All sources are sufficiently reliable, no marginal sources were present.  In fact, all of them appear to be sources that would generally be expected in an article under WikiProject Television.  I did not notice any areas that were not appropriately cited.  My personal preference is that the lead be uncluttered, and this article follows that same thought process.  Everything covered in the lead is expanded on in the article where it is properly cited.  Good job on this!  Media citations such as podcasts have appropriate time markers to locate and verify the material.  One knitpicky thing (and this is primarily personal preference), there were a couple of spots where repetitive cites are used.  I noticed this in the "Filming" subsection where the same source is citing consecutive sentences without any other sources breaking this up.  It's not necessary for that repetition.  Some reviewers might see it differently, so erring on the side of caution is probably better.  But if I had to find something to improve, that would be it (for me, at least).
C. It contains no original research: 
See 2b; no OR is present.  Plot summary appropriately sticks to the plot without unnecessary non-plot OR.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No evidence of copyvio!
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The article covers the areas that I would expect to see in an episode article.  Good coverage of the production with good use of subsections.  Episode articles risk being either too thin on production information specific to the episode, or cover too much outside of it.  This article had it right.  Reception includes both the release and thorough coverage of critical response. Personally, I thought it was fine.  If I was asked to give constructive direction for the article and couldn't find anywhere else to do so, I'd say that maybe you could trim some of the Reception section.  It's the heaviest of all subsections, so if length were an issue (which I don't think it is), that might be a place to improve.  But overall, good coverage and all of the reviews noted were industry standard - no oddballs force fit to pad the coverage.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
I found the level of detail to be a good balance.  It gave good coverage of the topic without me as a reader feeling that it was droning on with too much.  As noted in 3a, the Reception could be trimmed a little bit, but that's just knitpicking.  I did not feel exhausted reading it, nor did I feel that there were any glaringly obvious holes in coverage.  Excellent balance and article length.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No bias/neutrality issues are present.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Very stable.  The majority of edits in last few months are by the nominator leading up to nomination.  In fact, there have been very minimal edits during at least the past several months.  Absolutely no issues with stability.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images are either CC or have a fairuse rationale.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
All images have a caption and are relevant.  Good use of images in the article body!
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This article shows great attention to detail and good coverage. Well done!
ButlerBlog (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Thanks for the thorough review and kind words! Just a heads up that the review is still active—not that there's any rush to close, of course. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me!  I think I have it closed now. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)