# Talk:The Hawking Excitation

I was originally planning to include the following text in the article, under "Reception". However, the website from which this review come from (linked to in the reference) is on the Spam Blacklist. First of all, is there any problem with that website, or was it just blocked due to a spammer using it repeatedly? Is the review invalid, somehow? Secondly, does this mean there is something wrong with the text? Would it be appropriate to include this as I had originally planned?

The writers were also complimented for limiting screen time of guest stars, so as not to sacrifice the integrity of their writing.[1]
I wrote the website as "xaminer.com" instead of "examiner" so it won't trigger the SPB.
(The link was originally written as a reference: <ref name="Examiner">{{cite news|url=http://www.xaminer.com/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review|title=Examiner|work=examiner.com|accessdate=April 15, 2014}}</ref>)
Bilorv (talk)  20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Edited 13:53, April 21, 2014

I think anyone with a keyboard can be an Examiner contributor, and therefore it's not an RS. — Wyliepedia 12:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hawking Excitation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I don't believe we've met. After Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute, I will review this next. BenLinus1214talk 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's get this party started! :)

I know people vary on this in television articles, but I find citations such as the ones in the infobox or after "it is the 108th episode overall" kind of unnecessary. But if you like them, you can keep them—I don't have a big problem with it either way.
I've removed the director parameter reference, since that's shown in the episode's ending credits, but I prefer to leave the other two there.
Link to The Big Bang Theory (season 5) in first sentence?
Done.
I would put the first mention of Hawking at the top of the second paragraph, as this makes more sense from the article's organization. I understand your difficulty here, as the episode centers around Hawking, but I would start the synopsis with "After learning that Stephen Hawking is coming to lecture at Caltech…" and the second paragraph with "the end of the episode features a short cameo appearance from Hawking.
I've jumbled things around in the lead a bit. Take a look and tell me if you've still got any problems with it.
I like the image of Hawking in the article, but maybe it would be more appropriate in the production section than the plot section? Images, and especially real-life photos, just don't seem to fit well with a plot section.
Done.
Link to Prady in the production section?
Done.
Ref 12 is missing a work listed.
Added.
"too ill to do so" maybe? The sentence seems a bit chopped.
Fixed.
I don't really like the phrasing "major" guest star—maybe "celebrity guest star" or some other wording if you prefer?
"celebrity guest star" seems like a tautology to me. I can understand why you dislike "major" but "third guest star" would be untrue. Would "high-profile guest star" be better?
Very much so. I changed it.
Link to "The Stag Convergence".
Done.
Perhaps you should include the typical WP explanation of how to read a Nielsen rating (i.e. "Pilot (The Office)").
Okay; I've tried to explain it a bit.
Saying that it received "mostly positive reviews" before leading off with a negative review is a bit odd. Put positive reviews first, I would say.
The reviews now go from best to worst (roughly speaking).
This is two positive reviews, one mixed review, and one negative review—is that "mostly positive reviews"? I'll let you decide, but I might rethink the consensus.
I think I wrote "mostly positive" back before I had included the negative review, or something like that. I've changed it to "mixed reviews", because you're quite right.
I know it's difficult here because the HuffPost article doesn't have a credited author, but maybe just put The Huffington Post instead of the vague "one critic."
Done.
Okay. I think I've addressed everything so far. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything has been fixed other than the "major guest star" problem. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pass. BenLinus1214talk 12:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, 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): 

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: 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Hawking Excitation. 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://archive.is/20130113222519/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10
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) 22:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)