# Talk:Chapter 1 (Legion)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chapter 1 (Legion)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've seen the episode, but haven't read or edited the article previously. I'll post a review soon. -- AlexTW 13:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my first review, so bare with me here. Luckily the article is already in pretty good shape, and it's close to a pass. -- AlexTW 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this Alex, I'll try to get to these points soon, but it may not be until the weekend. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, no problems. I'm not in any rush, so take your time. -- AlexTW 00:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 On hold until  the nominating editor returns to editing. -- AlexTW 11:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I have gone through and made some changes. Responses are below. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Responded with a few final last-minute suggestions. One more round, and it should be good to pass for GA. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have made the last couple of changes: better mutant explanation, but moved to the body since it is getting quite big; and made the note visible to readers (considered the quote parametre, but that's not really what it is meant to be used for). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
In that case, we're all good. Passing this for GA.  Congrats. -- AlexTW 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again Alex! - adamstom97 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
television series Legion, based on the Marvel Comics character David Haller. I think this should read "television series Legion, which is based on the Marvel Comics character David Haller."
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
who think he may be the most powerful mutant discovered While it is linked, someone who has read only this article may not understand what a mutant is in this context; a short expanding sentence wouldn't do astray.
I have added an attempt at an explanation. I am open to alternative wording, and would also like to suggest leaving the explanation out of the lead but using it with the first use of 'mutant' in the body. Just a thought. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That works, but then that introduces a new term - perhaps something along the lines of "someone possessing a genetic trait that gives them superhuman powers and abilities"? -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Plot
The plot ranks in at just over 300 words, and the TVPLOT guideline allows up to 500 - is this able to be fleshed out in any more detail? Is there anything in the plot that can be linked to other articles?
I don't feel that there is much more I can do with the plot. There isn't anything major standing out to me in terms of linking, and I feel comfortable with the summary being shorter than we can have it since the plot isn't that complicated (just presented in a more complicated way). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
All good, just a suggestion. If you're happy with it where it is, then there's no need to change it. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Development
FX ordered a pilot for Legion, based on the Marvel character of the same name. I'd reword this as "to be based on the Marvel", similar to the lead.
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Noah Hawley signed to write the episode Use "signed on" instead of just "signed".
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
However, he quickly reconceived the series "and decided more Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Terrence Malick, more whimsy, more impressionistic". Reword to something like "However, he quickly reconceived the series and decided to go with an approached that was "more Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Terrence Malick, more whimsy, more impressionistic"."
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


### Writing
In May 2016, Hawley explained that "the structure of a story should reflect the content of the story. If the story, as in this case, is about a guy who is either schizophrenic or he has these abilities, i.e., he doesn’t know what’s real and what’s not real, then the audience should have the same experience ... my goal with this is to do something whimsical and imaginative and unexpected." Cut down a bit on the quoting of a full paragraph, and paraphrase it into regular prose.
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


### Casting
Keller's role was revealed to be Syd Barrett. When?
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Also in February 2017, David Selby announced that he would appear in 3 episode of the season, portraying Brubaker, a member of Division 3. Correct "3 episode" to "three episodes". And what is Division 3?
 Done and I have replaced the specific reference to 'Division 3'. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


### Music
With the pilot's release, Russo stated that the "through-line" of the series is the relationship between Haller and Barrett What is a "through-line"?
I have fixed and linked the term, though I thought it was a reasonably common one. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Better to be safe than sorry. I brought this up because I'd never heard of it myself, but linking it does indeed fix this issue. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Visual effects
collaborating with Hawley again after from Fargo Seems like chunky wording, around the "again after from" section. Needs rewording.
Fixed. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
A digital knife that flies past Haller's face was also added. More rewording; something like "A knife that flies past Haller's face was also digitally added."?
Changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


### Broadcast
"day-and-date" delivery system What is this? I haven't heard of the term before, it may need some detailing.
I think it is becoming more and more common (which is great). It means that the content is released on the same day around the world, as opposed to the episode airing in the US and then nowhere else for months. The rest of the sentence explains this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, that's fine. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Marketing
Response to the trailer was positive From the audience that the trailer was revealed to, or to critics? If both, this needs to be noted. If only one, then the other should be noted, especially as the rest of the paragraph talks about the views of both critics and audience.
I'm pretty sure that line is just about specific critic reviews, so I have gone with 'critics'. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Great. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
"almost Kubrickian in nature" Link to Kubrickian.
 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It was received enthusiastically by the audience, including Legion creator Bill Sienkiewicz. Reword this so that it is clear that we're talking about the creator of the character, not the series.
Let me know if my reword is too vague. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's perfectly fine. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Home media
The first seaosn was released on physical home media, yes? Was there any bonus content that related to the first episode and its production?
I think the home media release had not been added to this page because it hasn't come out in the US yet, and previously we have left other home media releases to the overview (series) page. Also, I cannot find a reliable source for home media release other than retailers, which I don't really want to use for bonus content. I can keep looking. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That's fair enough, especially if it hasn't been released in the U.S., as it's a U.S. series. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Ratings
would affect its viewership compared to similar series What similar series?
I think it works with that bit removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Including DVR numbers, the episode was eventually watched by 3.59 million viewers over its first week of release. The previous content of the same paragraph details how the ratings were considered, whether they were good or bad - what about this 3.59 million rating? Was this better, or still not overly good?
I have added some commentary from the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Great job. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Critical response
This section seems to have a bias towards positive reviews for the episode. While many of the reviews may be the case, reviews that had a more negative response may balance this out, and add some focus on any criticism of the episode.
I think the section is a fair representation, since the majority of reviews were positive, and I have noted where some of the more positive reviews had some negatives and vice versa as well. There shouldn't be an equal number of positive and negative reviews represented, since there are not an equal number of positive and negative reviews out there. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Miscellanous
There seems to be a number of quotes, more than there should be, that should be converted to prose rather than displayed as a direct quote. Particularly in the "Critical response" section.
I have gone through and tried to cut down on the big quotes I could find. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a lot better. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
References:
"Hawley, Noah (February 8, 2017). "Chapter 1". Legion. Season 1. Episode 1. FX." Could we do with a better source that's not the episode?
"@LegionFX (March 10, 2017). The visual effects in #LegionFX are out of control…or are they?. Twitter. Retrieved October 12, 2017." Unnecessary italics, and archiving is needed.
""Legion". Folks VFX. Retrieved October 12, 2017." This reference is given at the end of the first sentence of the "Visual effects" section, but the source does not directly go to any content that supports what's in the prose.
The episode citation is only used as a last resort. The second reference is formatted like that per the template used, and it is not archived because the source is a video (which we cannot archive). The last source is strange: I have taken the content from the video under Legion on that page, but there doesn't seem to be a direct link to it because of how the website is set up. I have decided to just link as close to it as possible and explain how to get to the video itself in a hidden comment. I don't think I can do better. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright. I wasn't aware that we couldn't archive videos. Fine as is, then. Perhaps instead of a hidden note, the |quote= parameter could be handier, so that editors viewing the ref can read the note given and know that they have to scroll down to the video. -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
Well written
Given the fixes for the few suggestions above, yes, this article is well written. 
Verifiable with no original research
All references seem to support the content of the article, bar the first and third references as mentioned in Miscellanous.
Noted and fixed. 
Broad in its coverage
The article is broad in the manner that it covers the main areas of production for a television episode. 
Neutral
As suggested for the critical response, a balance was suggested for the critical reception of the episode, concerning negative and positive reviews of the episode. As for the rest of the article, it is displayed in a neutral manner.
Noted, no fix required. 
Stable
There has been no recent edit-wars, disputes or mass changes recently. 
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Images of Hawley and the University of British Columbia clearly support the article, as well as the image given for the infobox, and they all have suitable captions. The infobox image's caption could have a shortener summary, if possible; I feel it is a bit too long and unwieldy for an infobox. Is a better picture of Dan Stevens available for the Critical response section, one that displays his face more clearly?
I have changed the image of Haller and cut down the infobox caption. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Much better photo and caption.  -- AlexTW 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dan Stevens (32493693323) (cropped).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)