Talk:George Burditt (writer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I'll review this. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
9. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
10. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
12. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
13. No original research.
14. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. Neutral.
17. Stable.
18. Illustrated, if possible.
19. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll use the checklist above. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Points to be addressed

Nominator's comment: The below review refers to the one of the old revisions. Improvements have been made. For clarity, here is the link to the specific revision. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, George. Hope you are well. This is only a short article so it hasn't taken long to review it. I have some suggestions as follows:

• The lead is a single sentence only and needs more to adequately summarise the narrative. I would mention his Emmy nominations and working with the likes of Paul Wayne and Dick Van Dyke. It would be fine as one paragraph.
  • Added another sentence in the lead. George Ho (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• You say he "worked for" the greetings card company but Joyce was "his former employee". This seems a bit contradictory on first reading. Was he a director of the company or just her manager? The source says she was fired and he was her boss. We need some clarification of his role.
  • I re-evaluated the sources. Unfortunately, the sources haven't detailed much about their roles in the same company. One source says George was her "boss", but that's much about it. Furthermore, it didn't say who fired her. I don't think any other sources mention their roles either very much or at all. George Ho (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm confused about the Emmy nomination(s) for Van Dyke and Company. The 1976 nomination should be mentioned in the first paragraph with the other three. It apparently didn't recognise Paul Wayne but it wasn't an entirely individual effort by Burditt. I think you need to describe all his nominations in one paragraph and then move on to other work.
  • I moved Emmy nominations to the third and last paragraph of the main section. I also moved one 1976 nomination to the said paragraph and then added detail about one nomination, including Wayne not being listed. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• The other work should be handled chronologically because I can see no reason for the sequence in the Burditt also wrote episodes sentence.
  • I wish I can do typical chronological stuff. However, one paragraph should detail Burditt's solo work/career. Another paragraph should detail his partnership with Paul Wayne. Another paragraph should detail his award nominations. To put another way, the section should go from his solo credentials to his team(work) credentials, including award nominations. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• The construction and Three's a Crowd (1984–85)—which he also produced—<ref name=deadline /> the first season is poor, both grammatically and in citation placement. I would move the bit about production into a separate sentence and apply the citation to one or both mentions as appropriate.
  • I broke that into separate sentences and rearranged them into somewhat chronological but also categorical order. I put his writing stuff first and then detailed his career as a producer in one paragraph. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• The last two sentences of the career section both begin with Burditt also wrote and are overlong, especially with the production pieces included. Overuse of "also" is distracting. I would put all production activity into separate sentence(s) to improve context.
  • I'm doing my best to reduce the "also" use. To do so, I merged one sentence into another. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• It seems that all his credits are sourced in the career section but the same should be done in the filmography. This would facilitate source lookup for readers.
  • More inline citations have been provided, and I'm using one Deadline article as the main source. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• A few minor tweaks were needed: e.g., too many surname mentions. I've done these to save time but the main one is the paragraph break in the career section because the Emmy nominations need to be consolidated in a single paragraph (see above).
  • I thought about reducing the number of surnames, but replacing them with pronouns wouldn't make sense for the awards paragraph. At least I changed one surname in the paragraph about his solo career. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of the checklist criteria have been ticked. The sourcing is fine except for completion of the filmography. There are no neutrality or OR problems. In essence, it isn't a million miles away and it just needs some polish, really. I'll place on hold but please let me know if you need to ask me anything in the meantime. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: The above review refers to the one of the old revisions. Improvements have been made. For clarity, here is the link to the specific revision. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, George. Thanks for this. I'm pushed for time this morning but will try and look at it later. If not, then definitely tomorrow. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Result

Back again, George. Hope you are well. This is fine and I'm passing it. I'll do the necessary at WP:GA. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)