Talk:Eve (American TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs) 23:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One very small mistake I noticed in the "Conception" subsection is this sentence" "They also felt that the audience would the title Eve even though Eve's character had a different name.". Are you saying the the title was changed from The Opposite Sex to Eve to attract her fanbase, despite Eve's character being named Shelley? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for taking this for review. I have corrected that part; I am not sure what happened there lol. I wrote a majority of this over the span of a day or two so there are probably a few more points where I forgot to finish a thought so thank you for pointing this out. I look forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk)

Honestly, I was just expecting you to nominate it for GA; the article looks great. Unfortunately, since I have college going on I'm most likely going to review this in bits, if that's alright with you. Something else I found is this: "In a 2016 interview with Grazia, she revealed her regrets about not fully committing herself to her character and the series. Eve explained this by saying: “I was the youngest person on set and was clubbing in between being on set and learning my lines. I look back and wish I was more dedicated. But I learned from it.”". Nothing here is grammatically incorrect or anything, but I think it would be better if you said "and the series, stating "I was [...] learned from it." I think it would be better than repeating Eve's name since we're already talking about her, and replacing "explained this by saying" with only one word. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you and take as long as you need. I hope that everything is going well with college! And that makes sense; I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you  :), it's going pretty well. Something else I noticed is that when referring to WB or CW you write them as "the CW". Since "the" is part of the name the T should be a capital letter, like this: "The WB", "The CW". --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

In the "Ratings" subsection you write near the end "only Everybody Hates Chris ranked above it for Latin women in the 12–17 age demographic". Seeing as the "Latin women in th 12-17 age demographic" is already mentioned in the previous sentence, you don't need to repeat it again. Also, "ranking" instead of "ranked". Moving into the lead section, here are some things than need correcting: "With [an] ensamble cast", remove the second "and" in "and Warner Bros. Television", replace "that she was not fully commited" with "not fully commiting", "The show [was] initially promoted" and lasty in "while others felt that it was inferior to those of similar sitcoms" are you saying that other reviewers felt it was inferior compared to the other black sitcoms of the line-up? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Addressed all of your comments. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, time to see if it meets the criteria.

1. Well written: The article had a few mistakes here and there but you've corrected all of them. Style-wise, it looks great.

2. Verifiable with no original research: The article clearly has a "Reference" list that use 30em so it doesn't take too much space. The article contain numerous references from reliable sources and doesn't contain any original research. Direct quotations do exist without plagiarizing the entire sources.

3. Broad in its coverage: Hoo boy is it broad? The "Premise" section informas readers well enough on both the plot and its characters, summaries of each season do exist, the "Background" sections is very informative on the show's conception and development; the same applies to the "Reception" section.

4. Neutral: The article is neutral, without attempting to either sell or bash the series to the readers.

5. Stable: The article didn't have many changes until Aoba47 begun editing, at which point it changed radically. However, at this point, changes have been minor, only improving the article and not changing too much.

6. Illustrated: The article contain both the title card and Eve. Both images have appropriate copyright status etc. If the nominator wishes, they could re-add a previous picture they removed of the cast in the "Premise" section.

@Aoba47: Congratulations! That's another good article for you. Wonderful work. It's a pass. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the review! I look forward to working with you further in the future.