# Talk:Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Matthew RD 19:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I shall do so soon. -- Matthew RD 19:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
OK now I will review the page. At first glance it looks good enough, lets look indepth and review it against the GA critera.

Well written: See notes below
Factually accurate and verifiable: Mostly pass, see notes below
Broad in coverage: Stays within topic. Passed
Neutral: Passed
Stable: Passed
Images: Two free images, they're fine (though Fedak's is blurry, but that's no issue)
Overall the article is well done, with just the odd issues.

The article is almost well written. The one problem I do have though is to fully pronounce initials (CIA to Central Intelligence Agency, then feel free to abbreviate it afterwards, like Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and/or keep it abbreviated in following mentions, and ER to emergency room)
 Done
I think the songs of the episode are more suited in the inbobox under "Music = " field, but it's alright if you feel otherwise. Other Chuck episode articles have music in the prose. It's up to you.
For consistency, I think I'll leave it the way it is for now. I may change that on this and other episodes in the future, but I've only seen that parameter used for music performed in episodes of a series (like Glee).
You could cite ratings from the previous week and mention how much it's gone up like you did in Chuck Versus the Last Details. Again that's up to you.
 Done
Ref #2 says it was published in April 22, 2011, yet the web page itself says April 22, 2010.
 Fixed. Seems I mixed up the date and accessdate.
Ref #6 needs a publisher.
 Fixed. Tell me if there's anything else. :) --Boycool (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I will place the article on hold for seven days, though I doubt this will take long. Good luck. -- Matthew RD 20:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the issues. I will pass the article. Well done, and I hope to see more Chuck episode articles like this. -- Matthew RD 23:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! --Boycool (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured I could offer some suggestions for improvement of this article. I know that one of the issues Malleus mentioned was comprehensibility for someone who doesn't follow the series, and I can tell what he means. 
Plot: 

Vivian poisons Chuck's fiancée Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski) with the Volkoff Industries "Norseman" weapon - Could this weapon be explained in a bit of detail?
Chuck, his mother Mary (Linda Hamilton), and ally John Casey (Adam Baldwin) set out to find an antidote to the Norseman's effects, - What effects?
but when Chuck breaks into the prison holding Alexei, he discovers that the CIA's toughest agent, - Tough isn't very formal.
To protect Alexei's true identity and conceal the government's botched experiment, Decker revokes all of Chuck's CIA resources. - What botched experiment? Perhaps a context section to introduce the series would be useful here.
Casey helps Chuck and Hartley escape, giving Chuck discs containing clean fabricated identities for him and Sarah. - Discs?
Using the information about Volkoff as leverage against Decker, Chuck delivers the antidote. - Leverage isn't very formal.
Production:

"Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger" was one of many episodes to be directed by producer Robert Duncan McNeill,[2][3] and was written by series co-creator Chris Fedak and Nicholas Wootton,[3][4] both of whom serve as executive producers.[5] - co-creators
Those are my comments from a pretty quick read-through. I think that establishing a basic outline for the episode would be a great improvement (see Through_the_Looking_Glass_(Lost) for an example). ceranthor 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking the time to help me/this article. Now, on to your comments. One major thing to consider in making the plot clear is word count (I think the maximum is supposed to be 500 words, which this article all ready slightly exceeds). Going over a little bit is understandable for particularly complicated plots (Inception is almost 200 words over the limit for film plot summaries).
The Norseman is first introduced in "Chuck Versus the Family Volkoff" as a series of components which, when assembled, can use a person's DNA to pick them out of a crowd and kill them with 100% accuracy. By "Chuck Versus the Last Details", the Norseman is fully assembled. When it is activated, it appears to poison someone without directly (visibly?) touching them, causing them intense pain before killing them. At the end of "...Last Details", Sarah is targeted, and the reason why she isn't killed instantly is never explained. Presumably it's since two doctors were right next to her.
The effects of the Norseman, in the case of Sarah, are killing her with a weaponized version of thorium.
What alternative to "tough" would you suggest?
The botched experiment in which MI6 scientist Hartley Winterbottom became Alexei Volkoff.
Yes, discs.
What alternative to "leverage" would you suggest? --Boycool (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, though, you can't just guarantee that someone is going to visit prior episode articles, and you can't really direct them to such articles, either. So I'd suggest a section in the lead that explains the context of the episode, like the Norseman and its effects, as well as the experiment. Also, can you explain what the discs do; it's not very clear. As for leverage, that sentence would have to be rewritten. ceranthor 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I would feel bad about this, but since you've contributed this much, here's a couple of paragraphs for context. How would you suggest I improve them and/or trim them down?
Chuck revolves around the Intersect, a government database designed by Stephen J. Bartowski. In the pilot episode of the series, Stephen's son Chuck (Zachary Levi) receives the database and accidentally uploads it to his brain. Chuck is then forced from his life as an employee at the big-box store Buy More to the spy world. By the fourth season, Chuck is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent and is engaged to one of his handlers, Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski). 
In the season, Chuck and his team fulfill Stephen Bartowski's last wish to destroy Volkoff Industries, led by international arms dealer Alexei Volkoff (Timothy Dalton). It is then revealed that Volkoff was actually an MI6 scientist who worked with Stephen in the 1980s. In preparation for an undercover assignment as an arms dealer named Alexei Volkoff, Winterbottom became the first person to upload the Intersect. However, the upload malfunctioned, overwriting Winterbottom's personality with that of his cover, and Stephen spent the last 20 years of his life trying to fix his mistake. At the end of "Chuck Versus the Last Details", Volkoff's daughter Vivian (Lauren Cohan) learns of her father's true identity, and, holding Chuck responsible, poisons Chuck's fiancée Sarah with a Volkoff Industries weapon called "the Norseman". To save Sarah's life and stop Vivian from destroying his and Sarah's wedding, Chuck turns to Alexei for help. To keep secret Volkoff's true identity, the CIA sends its "toughest" agent, Clyde Decker (Richard Burgi), to stop Chuck.
--Boycool (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems quite good, actually. Are you planning to add that to the lead? ceranthor 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have placed it in the lead. It's quite a lengthy plot summary for a lead, but if it helps people comprehend the article then I guess it's worth it. One problem I can see coming up is that not all of it is specifically supported in the article (the point of a lead being to summarize an article), and therefore not all of it is sourced either. --Boycool (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree that context is needed for some of these, but should each episode's article really be expected to repeat the basic premise of the show? It seems to me this is exactly what the purpose of linking to the show's article should be. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
So what would you suggest as an alternative to these "context paragraphs"? --Boycool (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. The unfortunate truth is that it's a pain for some people to navigate back and forth between an episode article and the main series article just so that they can understand the basic idea. It makes an article IMHO much more accessible for the basic context to be established, thus preventing problems of misunderstanding and also allowing a non-expert or non-follower of the show to actually be interested in the article. ceranthor 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I have trouble seeing the difference between a TV episode article and any scientific article, for example. If I read an article on some advanced math concept, I could be expected to know most of the more basic concepts used to describe it. And those concepts should be linked, so that any I don't know, I can go read about. The article I'm reading, though, can hardly be expected to teach me everything I need to understand the terms used to describe the advanced concept. How is it any different for a TV episode article?
Specifically, though, the article already mentions "a government database called the Intersect". Chuck is identified as a CIA agent. On first mention, Sarah is identified as his fiancee (maybe it should be "Chuck's fiancee and former CIA handler"). Isn't that enough context? In film articles, we usually don't even bother explaining all the background, and films don't have a series to fall back on. I'm just not sure that I'm comfortable with repeating very similar paragraphs on the series premise in every episode article. Internal links have to count for something. Some may consider it a pain to navigate to a different page, but that's the way the links are supposed to work. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I agree that linked items really shouldn't need to be explained, unless the linked article isn't any more elucidating to a non-expert. The only things I asked to be explained were the Norseman and its effects, and anything else that wasn't linked. I'm still not totally satisfied that they have been sufficiently explained, other than that the Norseman is a weapon and its effects are somehow endangering Sarah. ceranthor 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The Norseman is a classic MacGuffin; its effects aren't explained any more than is necessary to further the plot. --Boycool (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, then I think most of the problems with context have been resolved. The prose still needs some work, however. I'll post some comments soon. ceranthor 23:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 Essentially, upon a re-check, there are still small issues here and there with comprehensibility for a non-fan. I'll post some comments later. ceranthor 04:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1. At the very end of the episode a Blazing Saddles quote is made nearly verbatim, missing only the expletive.  Decker: "Guess it's the dawn of a new chapter, eh boy?" Chuck replies, "I'd watch that 'Boy' talk, redneck." 
2. On Morgan's vestment/stole of office as officiator of their wedding, seen just before and after Chuck's "vows" there is embroidered some character that is perhaps Kirby or one of the Pokémon characters.  
Thistledowne (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger. 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/20110926194437/http://www.nbc.com:80/comic-con/2011/video/chuck-panel-comic-con-2011/1342642 to http://www.nbc.com/comic-con/2011/video/chuck-panel-comic-con-2011/1342642/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 10:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger. 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/20110522171045/http://www.boomtron.com/2011/05/chuck-chuck-versus-the-cliffhanger-review/ to http://www.boomtron.com/2011/05/chuck-chuck-versus-the-cliffhanger-review/
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) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)