# Talk:Losing My Religion (Grey's Anatomy)

Image:GA~LosingMyRelegion~Cap01.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Losing My Religion (Grey's Anatomy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this within the next seven days. Probably much sooner though. TBrandley 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede: "was originally broadcast with "Deterioration of the Fight or Flight Response",". Huh. Could that be further explained?
 Done

Production: "titled" should be "entitled"
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Production: Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That said, I see wasn’t use that when it should use the latter (') straight one.
 Not sure I don't see where the problem is... There's no curly apostrophe in the text. Sofffie7 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Its in the reference text from "Production". Sorry. TBrandley 13:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Reception: One review takes up a full paragraph. Way too big
Even though I tried to reduce the Huffington Post's paragrapgh, I think it's not a problem because if you look at Great Expectations (Grey's Anatomy), you'll see there are 2 bigger reviews from IGN and Cinema Blend. The same is true at I Always Feel Like Somebody's Watchin' Me with Cinema Blend's review. Both pages were reviewed by you. Another example is Wishin' and Hopin' (Grey's Anatomy)—reviewed by someone else— where there are countless quotes. Sofffie7 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Although the other pages have this, it is a legitimate problem. Per WP:TVRECEPTION, each review "preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer." I'll endeavor the fix the other pages as well. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I did a good paraphrasing and condensing of the section, and no critic has more than three lines now. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you noted below that a comment I made was not part of the GA guidelines in WP:WIAGA, I should probably point out that WP:TVRECEPTION is also not a requirement for good articles. In fact, the idea is to avoid WP:UNDUE, so having an appropriately weighted representation of opinions by a set of reliable reviewers is the ideal. Limiting it to three sentences isn't really the issue.
That said, the actual condensation was problematic: in at least one case, the phrasing did not reflect what the reviewer actually said, and the prose was not  "clear and concise" as called for in the standard. I've noted some issues below in the new section at the bottom. A bit more of the quoted material could have been retained; indeed, having quoted phrases gives a sense of a reviewer's thoughts and approach, which is helpful in interpreting the surrounding paraphrase. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:TVRECEPTION is basically just part of the prose clarity. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
References: Don't yell at me. Lol. Don't shout in some references
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
References: ABC Medianet should be Medianet followed by American Broadcasting Company, as the publisher
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
References: Tribune Media Services should Tribune Company
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
References: Television Without Pity is missing its publisher (NBCUniversal)
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
References: Ref. 13 has the publisher, which is Blogspot
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
References: Many linked problems.
This is not a good article criterion. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
References: Ref. 15 regular - should be an en-dash –, per WP:DASH
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
External links: Add "Grey's Anatomy Wiki" link.
I very much doubt that adding an external link to a fan wiki is a legitimate Good Article requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Overall; good work. In awesome shape, once the above concerns are addressed, I'll be extremely happy to pass. Great work! TBrandley 03:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I found a number of prose, punctuation, and sourcing issues that ought to be addressed before the article is passed.
First, the lede:

"The episode opened to mixed reviews from television critics, with Dr. Cristina Yang (Sandra Oh)'s storyline particularly praised." I don't know what is meant by "opened to mixed reviews": is it the opening scenes that got the mixed reception, did the reviews open with mixed remarks, or what? I'm not sure what to make of "with", since the transition from mixed to praised is so abrupt: "with" implies a connection that just isn't there.
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The final two sentences of the Production section:

The claim about Snow Patrol's increased American profile needs a citation; it isn't covered by the source at the end of the paragraph.
 Not sure I didn't put this information but to me it looks like it's sourced; Mark Lawson of the Guardian actually says: "Snow Patrol owe much of their US profile to the use of their Chasing Cars track in a particularly dramatic Grey's Anatomy finale." Sofffie7 (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is some backing for it, but it's odd: it says much of their US profile is due to the song's use, but there's no context as to what it was vs. what it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The wording of the final sentence is a stretch, based on the given source: the word "conceded" in particular seems inappropriate. See WP:WORDS.
I changed the word with "admitted". Is that OK? Sofffie7 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I would call it  Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There are also some issues in the Reception section; here are the ones that struck me most strongly:

Per MOS:QUOTE, when you quote something that already has a quote within it, the internal double quotes turn into single, and so on. So when quoting a review that has a word like "prom" quoted in the review itself, it becomes 'prom' when the larger sentence around it is quoted. There are at least a couple of places that need correcting.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Sofffie7 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not a requirement of the good article criteria. The criteria only says that the article has to comply with the MOS for "lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation."
It's a prose issue. The internal double quotes look misplaced, ending the beginning one and starting a new one, which make the sentence confusing. To fail to mention it, even if it may not be technically required, seems unhelpful, especially if (in this case) the editor didn't know about it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
A couple of the quotes from reviews are quite long, and could stand to have more of their import be paraphrased. In particular, the 72-word Keller quote—anything over 40 should really be set off in a blockquote according to MOS—is excessive.
I did a bit of rephrasing earlier and Jonathan Harold Koszeghi improved the section in general. Sofffie7 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Now it is  Done. I did a lot of paraphrasing and condensing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If 'who will she choose' is a quote from the article, it needs to be in double quotes. If it isn't from the article, then it's confusing: single quotes shouldn't be used for this purpose. I recommend rephrasing to avoid the use of quotes.
The text says: "So, we end this season with the clichéd cliffhanger of 'Who will she pick?' I dunno. Seemed kind of lame." I've now written: He called the cliffhanger of who Grey will choose "lame". Sofffie7 (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ryan paragraph: "She wrote the initial idea of having Torres as a rebel". I doubt Ryan wrote it; please rephrase.
The text says: "I think she was meant to be a fiery rebel, someone who would make George re-examine himself and would challenge the cool-girls clique run by Meredith, Izzie and Cristina. That was an excellent idea, but they never fleshed Callie out enough." I added the word "fiery" and it now reads: She wrote the initial idea of having Torres as a "fiery rebel" who would lead O'Malley to apply some self-analysis and challenge the other girls was good, but could only observe that her character was underdeveloped. Sofffie7 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"Her gown was also badly responded to": this also needs to be redone. In addition, the Chao quote that follows would be better if summarized instead.
It now reads: "Ramirez's outfit also drew criticism, as Ryan found it was not advantageous for her curves". The Chao has not been changed (yet) Sofffie7 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised to read the word "angsting" in the Sepinwall paraphrase—it's an odd word to choose—and when checking the source discovered that it is indeed Sepinwall's, as is "quickie". I think a little more care needs to be taken in the word choices when paraphrasing sources.
The part about Grey "angsting" over Shepherd has been changed too. However, the word "quickie" is still present. Is that really bad? I mean, it's the word he used; it's what they did. Sofffie7 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It's the word Sepinwall uses, and there are enough other choices that if you want to retain it, I think putting quotes around it is appropriate. (However, note that using a wikilink within quoted material is frowned upon by MOS in general, though it may not be so in any of the MOS sections that are official parts of the GA criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Finally, there's one thing that strikes me as odd, though I can't find anything about it in WP:MOS: the displaced possessive. Two examples from the lede:

"Dr. Richard Webber (James Pickens, Jr.)'s" rather than "Dr. Richard Webber's (James Pickens, Jr.)".
"Sara Ramirez (Dr. Callie Torres)'" looks even odder to my eye. (It's oddly constructed anyway; I'd suggest recasting it as something like "Sara Ramirez made her final appearance as a recurring guest star in the role of Dr. Callie Torres".)
Are these really correct? — BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the proper placement; regardless it is not a GA requirement. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think it would be a requirement, I just thought it was odd. However, there is an issue with the Ramirez sentence: it's misleading. I thought it meant she left the show. I just noticed, however, that it actually means she became a series regular in the next season. The lede, if the fact is worth mentioning at all, needs to make it quite clear that her promotion in the next season is why this was her last as a recurring character. Make it quick and straightforward, if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding those comments, before I got a chance to do so. Cheers! TBrandley 04:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your review :) I've adressed some of your comments but not everything yet (like the rephrasing work) --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry; but I'm not going to be able to pass this article until August 20, 2012, since I'm going on vacation up until then. Sorry for any inconvenience. TBrandley 13:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Some new additions:

Plot: the sentence involving the dog Doc is unclear: "he" could be either Doc or Dandridge.
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Plot: second paragraph has a misspelling of "Shepherd"
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Plot: I think the "As the episode ends" sentence would read better if it were split in two; it's a bit convoluted as it stands
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Production: Since KOMO are the call letters of an actual broadcast station, I believe they should be capitalized just like an acronym would be.
 Done, removed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Production: The sentence starting "However" has a problem
 Done The whole recent block about the location has been removed. Sofffie7 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Production : the beginning of the second has an awfully long quote from Rhimes; shorten it if you can. The first three words, "because, to [her]" should especially be removed from within the quote: they look odd and out of place. Perhaps "because she felt" or something like it would be a better choice. Alternatively, you could put the entire thing in a quote box on the right, and summarize it much more briefly in the text: mention the letting go and list those who are doing so.
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
— BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
General comment: The more I read this, the more problems I find with the prose and the article structure. I honestly don't understand how this could have been described as "in awesome shape", though I know hard work has been put into it. The bulk of the issues are with regard to the Good article criteria, particularly the first part of the "What is a good article" section.
In particular:

The intro does not follow WP:LEAD, as is required for all Good Articles. Among other things, that page states: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This one has:
A bit more detail on the storylines here than in Plot. For example, Plot doesn't mention that Burke had been shot, which I presume is why he's in surgery at the beginning of the episode
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The entire list of recurring (and new!) guest stars, which should be in Production rather than here
I've elaborated further in production, but it is unnecessary to remove it from the LEAD. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not have any significant information from Reception: the "lame" cliffhanger, and the failure of the show to mete out severe career consequences when Stevens cut the LVAD, are two points that could be added
 Done by Sophie. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What the lead needs to be is a summary of the rest of the article, which in this case is the Plot, Production, and Reception sections. The fact that this is the second part of a two-part special is appropriate here, but it also belongs in Production. If there are further details about the planning of an extended finale, they would go in Production as well.
I feel the prose is not clear in many places, and a copyedit would be helpful to get the article there. Some examples:

Lead:
"The recurring characters of … were portrayed with guest star billing, in addition to Tessa Thompson": the actors were billed as guest stars, not the characters; this sentence mixes both in a confusing manner. When it's moved to Production, it needs to be fixed.
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"The episode opened to mixed reviews from television critics": As noted earlier, the word "opened" doesn't fit here
 Done by Sophie. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Plot:
"As everyone works around him, Burke finds a tremor in the movements of his right hand." I've picked up that he had been shot from the intro and from this section that he was operated on at the beginning of the show, but there's important context still missing here.
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Dr. Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo)'s love interest Dr. Finn Dandrige (Chris O'Donnell), the vet of Doc, the dog she shares with Shepherd, informs her that Doc has had several seizures due his cancer and that they have to make a decision." This is a very convoluted sentence, and needs to be clearer. The final "they" may in fact be Grey and Shepherd, those two with Dandridge, or (as it seems to turn out) all three plus Addison.
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Webber continues to interrogate the interns, one by one, not receiving any direct answer about Duquette's LVAD wire, only learning his interns' personal problems instead." A more direct way to word this: "Webber interrogates the interns individually about Duquette's LVAD wire, but only learns about their personal problems."
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, the second sentence begins "Meanwhile" and the third with "In the meantime": did all three things happen simultaneously? If not, the connection should not be implied.
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"While Webber is sitting in the operating room gallery, Dr. Miranda Bailey (Chandra Wilson) announces Duquette's death, as the word gets around and the interns hurry to his room to find a shocked Stevens, lying in bed clinging to his still form." Is who makes the announcement necessary, or where Webber was? Also, I think "lying on the bed" is better than "lying in bed", which sounds macabre here.
"lying on the bed" has been changed, but I don't see the problem of keeping the Webber/Bailey sentence. Sofffie7 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that it's extraneous to the plot as given, and it makes no sense to the reader why it's included. Why should it matter where he was or who announced the death? The goal is "clear and concise": the fact doesn't come up again, and indeed, neither Webber nor Bailey is mentioned again. Sometimes, people appear in an episode and aren't germane to the plot: Bailey, for example, appears to be someone who is not in this episode. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Brief inclusion of main characters that appeared in the episode is not problematic; it confirms they were not absent. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to me, but I won't press it. The sentence, however, remains problematic: even more so now that it's longer and the join works even less well than it did. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I split up the sentence into two separate ones. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Stevens expresses her guilt, letting the others know that her desire to prepare for the prom, in order to look "perfect" for her future husband, could have prevented Duquette from dying alone." Her desire could have prevented Duquette from dying alone?
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There are more problems with the rest of the section: Karev appearing out of the shadows: if he's an intern, he's already there according to an earlier sentence; if not, it needs revision. Yang's visit to Burke's room is not explained: does she know about the tremor, which could presumably prevent him from becoming a surgeon? The admission by Stevens to Webber that she cut the LVAD has just been removed; it's so major that, if she did do so, that fact needs to be restored.
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Query: does the prom actually take place? If so, it needs to be mentioned in this section, if only briefly, and in context.
 Done, Sofffie7 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Production: nothing particularly of note
Ok. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Reception: (including some of today's edits by others, which have problematic prose)
something's not quite right with the end of the first paragraph
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
beginning of next paragraph: "expressed mixed perspectives" — I don't know what this means. "Perspective" is not a synonym for "opinion" in this context. A single reviewer's perspective can result in favorable and unfavorable opinions of various aspects of the episode.
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"He was positive of Torres' evolution throughout the episode, and was also favorable of Heigl's performance." Both "positive of" and "favorable of" are problematic usages, here and in a few other places in this section.
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Writing for the Chicago Tribune, Maureen Ryan negatively reviewed the episode, stating: "overall, the whole thing just fell a little flat." Though Ryan appreciated the scene of Doc's death, she considered the scene of Duquette's death unrealistic." You don't know Ryan's state of mind when she reviewed it ("negatively reviewed"), just that she gave it a negative review. Further, from my reading, she didn't consider the scene of Duquette's death unrealistic. I don't get the impression she is talking about the fact that he just felt a bit of pain and died, but the fact that the interns were uninterrupted by staff during the long sequence. (Might she be referring back to the cutting of the LVAD? Her review is covering two episodes here; if it happened in the first hour, then she may be referring to that. Just a thought from someone who doesn't watch the show.)
 Done. You're right; it was in regard to the previous episode. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"She was also favorable of the scene during which he intervenes to calm Stevens down, and agreed that Grey's cliffhanger was not good." Who is "he"? And did she like the whole scene with Stevens and Duquette's body, or just the section of it where he intervenes?
 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
One thing to consider for this section: instead of listing each reviewer's opinions one after the other, interleave them, which allows the reader to get the varied viewpoints on the episode as a whole and on each of the various plot lines.
The prose can be clear and concise without resorting to this. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I realize this is a lot to take in, but the article still needs significant work before its prose is up to the "clear and concise" GA standard. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think Moonset's concerns should be fixed. Also, I'll take another look at this. TBrandley 04:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I've addressed most of the problems, but left the ones that are not part of the GA criteria as is. I've also done a little copyedit to the entire article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I've gave this article a quick little copy-edit, so, I think its good to pass. Anything else before I pass? TBrandley 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of an edit, and will probably do a bit more, but nothing of a nature to prevent passage. One thing that puzzles me, though, is that while rereading the Reception section, although it says the episode received mixed reviews, my impression after reading what's there from the five critics is of a mixed to negative reaction (i.e., definitely more negative than positive) rather than a basically even mix of positive, negative, and neutral. Maybe the balance is now off after the earlier cuts? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The balance seems all right to me but I agree with you that the episode received more negative reviews than good ones so I'll change the line ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Looks good. Pass. TBrandley 14:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Losing My Religion (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/20130319141934/http://www.greyswriters.com/2006/05/from_shonda_rhi.html to http://www.greyswriters.com/2006/05/from_shonda_rhi.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904052726/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/96298-Spamalots-Ramirez-Lands-Role-on-TVs-Greys-Anatomy to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/96298-Spamalots-Ramirez-Lands-Role-on-TVs-Greys-Anatomy
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528005920/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_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) 05:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Losing My Religion (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/20120711211044/http://abc.go.com/shows/greys-anatomy/episode-detail/losing-my-religion/89729 to http://abc.go.com/shows/greys-anatomy/episode-detail/losing-my-religion/89729
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) 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Losing My Religion (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/20120518015223/http://www.greyswriters.com/2006/06/hey_are_you_sti.html to http://www.greyswriters.com/2006/06/hey_are_you_sti.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20130204001101/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/greys-anatomy/losing-my-religion-3.php?page=10 to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/greys-anatomy/losing-my-religion-3.php?page=10
Added archive https://archive.is/20130203165645/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/greys-anatomy/losing-my-religion-3.php?page=13 to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/greys-anatomy/losing-my-religion-3.php?page=13
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) 13:33, 6 January 2018 (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) 06:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)