Talk:Reciprocity (Fringe)

Reciprocity (Fringe) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Reciprocity (Fringe) is part of the Fringe (season 3) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 21, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 26, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reciprocity (Fringe)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 05:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
"believed an artifact of the "First People", has been assembled" -> "believed to be" might work better.

Done Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia (or "Fauxlivia" and God I hate that name) is mentioned before the mention which Anna Torv is appended to. Perhaps this could be rephrased? Perhaps "Fauxlivia (Anna Torv)—Olivia's parallel universe doppelgänger—stole one component" would work.

Done Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Peter returns with Olivia (Anna Torv) and Walter (John Noble) to Massive Dynamic to undergo some tests to see if he was the cause for the device's activation, while Broyles (Lance Reddick) asks Astrid (Jasika Nicole) to discreetly review the files pulled from Fauxlivia's computer for any hidden messages, not wishing to have Olivia or Peter be forced to learn of what Fauxlivia wrote about them." -> I think this could be broken down into maybe two or three sentences. Perhaps "Peter returns with Olivia (Anna Torv) and Walter (John Noble) to Massive Dynamic to undergo some tests to see if he was the cause for the device's activation. Meanwhile, Broyles (Lance Reddick) asks Astrid (Jasika Nicole) to discreetly review the files pulled from Fauxlivia's computer for any hidden messages, not wishing to have Olivia or Peter be forced to learn of what Fauxlivia wrote about them."

Done Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The next day, the corpse of a shapeshifter is found, shot in the head and its data disc missing" -> What's its data disc? Maybe link to something relevant if possible.

Done Clarified Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the parallel universe was revealed in the season two finale, viewers have debated nicknames for the various doppelgangers featured. Olivia Dunham's double from the parallel universe was one such matter of contention; such nicknames included Bolivia, Fauxlivia, and Altlivia. "Reciprocity" was believed by some critics to have resolved this, as one character refers to the character as Fauxlivia.[1][5][6]" -> One use of "character" should probably be dropped. And do all these citations back up the whole section quoted here? If they're for individual parts of it then perhaps scatter them to reduce the clumping together of citations—if one backs up the speculative names, list it right after those, for instance.

The three cites are there because I mention "some critics"; all are referring to the mention of Fauxlivia, hence them being placed at the end of the paragraph Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand-o then. GRAPPLE X 06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"With time-shifted viewers" -> Maybe it's just because I'm from a backwards country, but what are these? I'm assuming it's the additional viewer numbers based on people using services like Sky+, am I right in this?

Done Time shifting is simply using a device like Sky+ or Tivo to record something on television. I added a little more info on this in article, along with a relevent wikilink Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thought the episode did a good job tricking the audience from realizing Peter was responsible for the shapeshifter killings" -> "tricking the audience into thinking Peter was not responsible", you don't trick someone from something.

Done Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS seems grand.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Apart from the aforementioned instance of possible citation clustering, this one's grand.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope seems okay, though regrettably no section is big enough to contain that picture without it poking into another.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article is neutral and unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is grand, no controversy or instability.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are fine. One is commons, used as well as it can be given its size (protrudes into a second heading but this is unavoidable). The other is non-free but its rationale is alright.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just a few 1A concerns to deal with here. Should be another notch in the next GTC soon enough. Holding it until these are seen to. GRAPPLE X 05:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! I was able to track down a little more production info from a DVD special feature, so hopefully that makes the section long enough for the image on your screen. Your other comments have also been addressed. Thanks again, Ruby 2010/2013 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me. And good to hear there's some more production info out there. This one's good to go, then. Well done. GRAPPLE X 06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 06:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reciprocity (Fringe). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]