# Talk:Remedial Chaos Theory

Should it be mentioned in the article that events of this episode actually happened before the previous one chronologically?   It goes to the joke about whether the apartment is 303 or 304 (production vs airing codes).
Discussed further here: http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2011/10/community-just-blew-my-mind
JustARogue (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, the final timeline, the one where Jeff leaves is not the prime timeline. In episode "304" Pierce mentions only ever telling the study group about hooking up with Eartha Kitt, Shirley calls Britta's lighter her "marijuana lighter", and there is tension between Jeff and Annie. This clearly shows that the timeline where Abed left is the prime-timeline. It is also the only time someone said "i hope this is the real timeline", but that's not as crucial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.144.158 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 

This article refers to the previous three episodes as having "generally negative reviews," but each of the articles for those episodes describes the reception as "generally positive." Is there a style guide for these kinds of descriptions, when to call a reception "generally favorable" or "generally negative?" 68.168.187.141 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

In this article, the "generally negative reviews" comment is based on four references (maybe more that alluded to the same phenomenon):
Dan Harmon's tumblr in which he alludes to fan criticism after the first three episodes: "in a season in which backlash is basically unavoidable, we were going to [i.e. did, by swapping 303 and 304] leap headlong into it, because everyone was going to start making decisions, as of the third episode, about how the season was going, etc."
AVClub "This is a reminder that when this show is at peak capacity—as it hasn’t been the last three weeks, even I’ll admit" and "For those of you who worried the show was done or worried the mostly new writing staff had killed some of its momentum or even worried that it would never do a concept episode again"
TV Fanatic "Following an underwhelming episode, Community bounced back" and you can see the previous three episodes receiving lukewarm and negative reviews.
Hollywood.com "I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say this is the best episode of the season, which may indicate that the best episodes the series has to offer at this point are the high concept ones. Either that or this is the point during the season that the writers get back on their game."
I haven't had time to properly flesh out the previous three episode articles yet, but I believe that a more well-rounded sample of critics would show no particular raving reviews of the opening episodes, and a murmuring of worries that the show was going downhill (all of which would be absolutely eviscerated by the very positive response to the third season as it progressed). In "Remedial Chaos Theory" we have explicit comments that this was a turning point for S3's critical consensus, but in other articles the "generally X" is usually just a summary of the reviews mentioned in the current state of the article. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Another unregistered editor has changed "generally negative" to "generally lukewarm" and I think this is still a fair reflection of the sources. Since there's been disagreement over this point, I'm fine with this as a compromise. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

An unregistered user has made some changes to the plot summary I recently wrote. Here's new versus old. The salient differences I see are:
1. Almost all information about the end tag is removed; these differences are key to understanding the characters' appearances and later episodes in which the characters feature.
2. The chronological progression of the episode is clearer in the old version, with more focus on the initial two roll and then things changing later ("in many of the timelines Annie checks on him" is said before the reader learns that the episode displays multiple different timelines, in "The scene is repeated several times").
3. "showing how it would go differently depending on who went to get the pizza" and "without him there to stop Britta from singing" is analysis rather than description, already well-discussed in the Analysis section.
4. From a couple of quick read-throughs, there are some details present in only one of the versions but I believe the older version has overall more significant set-ups for later (e.g. "Abed catching the diorama boulder as it rolls" and "Annie returns, calling the pizza guy a creep" versus "which made Annie and Jeff smile at each other").
5. The newer version is more wordy in its descriptions, admittedly an advantage, but when we have a word limit there's a tradeoff between verbosity and level of information.
Lots of these disadvantages to the new version weren't present in the user's initial changes but that took us well over MOS:TVPLOT's 400 word limit. With respect, the new version is not a bad summary but I believe the older version was better, so I've reinstated it. I suggest the volunteer lend their talents to some of the episode articles which are in worse shape to begin with (such as those over 400 words long e.g. Advanced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons), because we definitely do need help in improving these plot summaries on the whole. — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

1.  We could readd a short description of the end tag, if you want.
2.  The old version is more clear about the first timeline, but it isn't clear about what things remained the same between timelines, what things differed, and why they differed.  My new version makes that clear.  But if you want, I suppose we could move the line "in many of the [other] timelines Annie checks on [Jeff's injury]" after the description of the first timeline.
3.  I don't see the problem with the "without Jeff there" bit, but we can drop it if you want.  And if you insist, we can keep the old line "Similar scenes subsequently arise when the scene is restarted, Jeff rolling a different number each time" instead of my new line "The scene is repeated several times, showing how it would go differently depending on who went to get the pizza."  Although the old line is just as analytical as my new line, and it's phrased less clearly.
4.  The things I removed (Abed catching the boulder and Annie calling the pizza guy a creep) are not significant.  On the other hand, Annie and Jeff smiling at each other might not seem significant at first, but that's what triggers all the subsequent unique events in the Pierce timeline.
6.  I'm fine with the AAD&D article.  Remedial Chaos Theory is the only really complicated episode of Community, and it's the only one that needed a lot of clarification.  Even with my changes, the article still doesn't explain why everyone argued when Abed left.  But I decided it would take up too much space to explain that.  Which is too bad, because the analyses from Vulture and AV Club in the "Themes" section of the article are total misreads.  Whoever wrote them clearly didn't take the time to analyze the episode at all.  Maybe we should cut their explanation.
- 2603:9000:E408:4800:6015:55E9:7883:709A (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is original research. We can't highlight things based on your analysis of the episode. Which is not to say that I'm not personally interested in it, or disagree with it, but it's not relevant to Wikipedia. Vulture and The A.V. Club are professional high-quality sources and though I don't agree with them always (or often, even; I've almost always got a view quite different from most critics), it's how Wikipedia works. We need to include them.
Abed catching the boulder is setup for The Darkest Timeline. Annie's line is a setup to the punchline of Britta announcing her engagement. Annie and Jeff doesn't "trigger" anything because the timelines can be viewed to happen in parallel, not in the order we see them; I haven't seen a reviewer who drew a casual link between different timelines.
AAD&D violates our policies – the 400 words is a hard-and-fast rule – which is why I think you would be better to focus on other articles, where it's much simpler to make productive changes. AAD&D needs a plot 1/2 the length and "Critical reception" to be a third of its length (we should summarise critics as succinctly as possible). If you don't like that, find something else. Digital Estate Planning also has an inordinately long plot and needs massive "Reception" expansion. Cooperative Calligraphy needs more reviews etc. etc. RCT is one of the few high-quality episode articles we have. I mostly wrote it, and it's taken me years of experience on Wikipedia to reach the level of skill I'm at (which is not to say that I don't make lots of flaws or can't be wrong or improve). We can both spend our time better than arguing over minor plot points of RCT. — Bilorv (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting that it would be original research to write a plot summary that includes the significant parts of the plot?
Are you saying the Vulture analysis is correct?  Or are you saying we're obligated to include misinformation, just because it came from Vulture?
I agree that Abed catching the boulder and Annie calling the pizza guy a creep are setups.  My point was that they're not significant.
And yes, Annie and Jeff smiling does triggers all the subsequent unique events in the Pierce timeline.  It doesn't matter that the other timelines happen in parallel, because their smiling at each other also happens in the Pierce timeline. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:D05:799C:2470:52D2 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "correct"? Fiction can be interpreted in many different ways. The Vulture analysis is meaningful. I just prefer different interpretations. If it were factually incorrect then we could remove it, yes.
Original research is what you promote in this comment: Even with my changes, the article still doesn't explain why everyone argued when Abed left.  But I decided it would take up too much space to explain that.  Which is too bad, because the analyses from Vulture and AV Club in the "Themes" section of the article are total misreads. If it's not a simple observation of the plot that any viewer would agree with then we can't say it in the plot section, and we can't say it elsewhere without a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on references to reliable sources, not the views of its volunteers. — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Remedial Chaos Theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


### Lead
"The episode overall received critical acclaim" — "overall" feels slightly awkward in the middle like that. Perhaps just remove it?
"It has been described as one of the best episodes of 2011 or of the 2010s" — Dropping the second "of", would "and" or "as well as" instead of "or" be better suited? → "It has been described as one of the best episodes of 2011 and the 2010s" or "It has been described as one of the best episodes of 2011, as well as the 2010s".
Yep, chose the former. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


### Plot
It is common for films and songs to be written as Interstellar (2014). I do not believe that is required for Raiders of the Lost Ark as the content is about its boulder diorama, however I believe "Roxanne" should be written with (1978) at its first mention.
Yeah I think this is acceptable either way, but I've got no objections so I've added the year to "Roxanne". — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"When Shirley leaves, the group let her pies burn, so she insults them and exits." — It was a bit confusing to me until I read ahead. As I read, it seems like Shirley had left (the party) and then the pies get burnt, but then it is mentioned that she insults them before exiting. Maybe just add "leaves to get pizza" or something similar?
Yes, this is one of the reasons it's good to get the opinion of another person—I would have never noticed this, but it is confusing so I've replaced "leaves" with "gets pizza". — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


### Production
"The episode marks the first directing credit of the show for Jeff Melman." — I couldn't verify this from other sources, so please add a citation.
I can't find a source for it, so I've just said: "The episode was directed by Jeff Melman." (Implicit primary source is the work itself.) It actually appears to be Melman's only directing work on Community, but I'm basing that off the unreliable IMDb. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"Chang" — Write the actor's name in brackets perhaps, since its the first mention of the charaacter.
Unlink — "Roxanne" as it is linked in the section above.


### Themes
"Pierce being jealous at Abed for Troy moving to live with him." — It is worth mentioning why he gets jealous (Troy moves out).
Yeah that was supposed to be implied by the wording but hopefully this is more explicit: Pierce being jealous that Troy moves out of his mansion to live with Abed. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"One critic opined that" — Perhaps it would be better to mention who the critic was instead, like done in the next paragraph: "David Mello of Screen Rant reported".


### Reception
#### Critical reviews
"Whilst critical reception to the first three episodes of season three were generally lukewarm" — Minor point but "three" gets repeated twice. Perhaps "Whilst critical reception to the first three episodes of the season were generally lukewarm" would flow better.
Link — "Emily VanDerWerff", "Ken Tucker", "Alan Sepinwall", and "James Poniewozik" .
Unlink — "IGN" when linked for the second time.


### References
Optional — And a minor point but a few publishers, works and websites are linked repeatedly. They should only be linked on their first appearance.
This is an exception to MOS:REPEATLINK, so it's a stylistic choice. I prefer linking everywhere, because when citations are reordered or sentences or paragraphs shuffled around, you don't need to change which references have links in their parameters. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Reference 4 — Can have a "title" parameter.
Now:  ... |title=Fine, we're geniuses but not EVIL geniuses. |work=Dan Harmon Poops |publisher=[[Tumblr]] ...  — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Reference 8 — "HitFlix" should be in "publisher".
Reference 18 and 19 — "Den of Geek" should be in "publisher".
If you're basing these two on the lack of italics in their articles, I don't quite know what goes on there (it could be a mistake or referring to the company rather than website), but here I'm using them as the names of the website, so it's no different to The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly etc. in needing italics. However, I notice that there was some inconsistency and some refs missing a name, so I've done some tidying up. All website names should be in italics, I believe. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Reference 24 — Should have "Entertainment Weekly" in "work" instead of "EW.com" in "publisher".
Reference 37 — Should use MMDDYYYY as format.


### General
I found these two pages where a lot of sentences match the article's phrasing. However, I suspect it is the pages that use the article's content and not the other way around.
Yeah they definitely are - I do not know what those sites are but I have to suspect that they are not safe to visit. — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
That will be all for now. It is a well-written article and should pass. Thank you for your work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed all these comments, I think, and replied to some of them. Thanks for taking the time to review this carefully! — Bilorv (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


### Final
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
The fine quality of this article fittingly matches that of the acclaimed episode. You have done a great job in writing it. Thank you for your efforts! — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I’ve now had multiple conversations with people who know the phrase “darkest timeline,” referring to the 2016 u.s. presidential election, the pandemic, the roe decision, etc. who are not aware of this show. “Darkest timeline” does redirect to this page, but I wonder if it should be noted that the widespread use of this phrase originated here? 70.107.80.17 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that say this then yes; otherwise, no. It's possible for phrases or memes to originate independently, so we really do need a source to say that the modern usage derives from this episode, and moreover that it's a significant part of its legacy (I agree in principle that both are likely true). This is per Verifiability and Original research policies: as an encyclopedia, we can only aggregate existing reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)