Talk:Being Eileen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I get into any nitty-gritty, let me say first, thanks for your improvements to this article! On a first readthrough, it appears well sourced and to cover the main aspects of the topic, and to be well on its way to GA status. Unfortunately, it appears to me to still need a significant copyedit, beyond the touch-up of a regular GA review. As such, I'm not listing it for GA at this time; my suggestion would be to give it a close copyedit and then renominate, or if you're not comfortable doing that yourself, to consider asking for a review from the WP:GOCE.

I've listed some issues I saw below. Please note that this list isn't complete, just the things I noticed on a first, fast pass. Good luck with revisions on this one, and thanks again for your work on it! I hope you'll be nominating it again soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Being Eileen is a BBC "heart-warming" comedy-drama which began as a new six part series on 4 February, and ended on 11 March 2013" -- why say "it began as a new six-part series" instead of "it was"-- did it later turn into something else? Also, "began" and "new" seem redundant here.
• " it was announced to having a series renamed Being Eileen" -- "announced to having" is ungrammatical; I'm actually not clear what this means. Perhaps "it was announced that the story would continue in a series named Being Eileen"?
• "All the cast - Johnston, Berrington, Ash, Julie Graham and Keith Barron- a love interest for Eileen - returned for the series, with the exception of Stephen Graham and Zawe Ashton, who played Jingle Jill." -- having a phrase set off with dashes inside a phrase set off with dashes is needlessly confusing, as is shortening everyone's names to last names except Julie Graham. Also, noting Keith Barron as "a love interest for Eileen" instead of "portraying a love interest for Eileen" confuses the real and fictional in minor violation of WP:WAF
• The lead should at least touch on the "reception" section per WP:LEAD
• "the BBC announced that Lapland will have a full series" -- should be "would have", as this is now in the past.
• "Lapland is made by BBC In-House Comedy" -- should be "was", as it's no longer in production.
• "In 2013, the series was renamed to Being Eileen"--should be italicized, not bolded
• "On the 4 October 2012" -- "the" should be cut
• "Elizabeth Berrington plays Paula, and initially Stephen Graham, later Dean Andrews plays Pete, both of whom play Eileen's children" -- this sentence is super-confusing. The sentence names three actors and two characters--what two names are the "both of whom" that "play Eileen's children"?
• "Adam Scotland, Ellis Murphy, Connor Dempsey and Georgia Doyle as Eileen's grandchildren, Jack, Liam, Ethan and Melissa,[21] described as a "mixed bag of young children, some spoilt-rotten, some sugar-sweet"" -- this doesn't appear to be a complete sentence.
• "Johnston said of the Berrington's character Paula" -- why "the" Berrington?
• "Both Lapland and Being Eileen has received positive to mixed reviews from critics." -- This should be "have received" rather than "has received", since it's two things (plural). (Though even better would be to just say "received", since it's probably not an ongoing process anymore.)
• "Writers from Daily Telegraph and Liverpool Echo included Being Eileen in its television highlights of the week commencing 4 February 2013,[50][45] as did The Guardian, Reveal, The Irish Times, Sunday Mail, Western Mail, Daily Mirror and Daily Star." -- Instead of "its television highlights", this should be "their television highlights", since it's two writers. Also, why not just list all the newspapers together, if they all put them in their own television highlights? (I.e., why break the Telegraph and Echo out of the list for special notice?)
• "They said, "The cast were as good as their names and pedigrees suggest, but Christmas spirit? Not likely".[49] They reported that users feedback on Twitter was negative" -- a publication should be "it" rather than "they".
• Paddy Shennan's block quotation complaining about the series' scheduling seems like more detail than needed--can this not be summed up in a sentence or two?
• "saying that the shows "effortful implausibilities for comic effect aren't a deal-breaker"" -- should be "show's" (possessive)
• "BBC" is not a title, and shouldn't be italicized in the reference section