Talk:Kia Steave-Dickerson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Grabbing this. VedantTalk 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "Steave-Dickerson developed K.I.A. Enterprises, which does work in interior and scenic design and construction." - could use better verbs; "developed" and "does work" might not be the best choices.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Steave-Dickerson worked on..." - Without a timeline, this gives the impression that she does not work anymore.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1993, she began her career as a set designer and property master." - This too isn't well placed, and says very little that has not been said already. I think you might want to rearrange the paragraph.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• "While planning and decorating rooms for the participants, Steave-Dickerson said that she created specific themes for each scenario." - This might not be very obvious fore readers unfamiliar with the show. I suggest that you remove the "American reality television series" from the opening sentence and putting it here.

• I respectfully disagree with a part of this. The descriptive phrase should be used with the first mention of the show (i.e. the first sentence). Delaying it until that part would only lead to further confusion. I have revised the sentence to provide a better context in a different way. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do we know what her "early designs" were for?

• Unfortunately, there is no further information on this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Critics have called Steave-Dickerson's approach simplistic and bold" - You might want to elaborate here; simple and bold aren't the most alike.

• Unfortunately, there is no further information on this either. This is the sentence from the source to support (With a design style that is consistent and simplistic, yet bold and creative). Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do we have any other reviews for her work other that Shyamalan's?

• Unfortunately, I could not find any reviews, but property masters and set designers rarely get mentioned in reviewers unless the person is already well-known from other work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• "According to E! Online, Steave-Dickerson left the series voluntarily" - This breaks the flow, sort of. Do we know anything else about her exit? If not, it could be stated better. It would make more sense if put after: "and encouraged its producers to remove her from the series".

• I am not sure how the suggested revision would improve the sentence. In my opinion, I think it is better to just be straight-forward about it; I just think that your suggestion is a little bit unnecessarily wordy. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you the point wasn't clear here. I meant that the sentence could remain and the same and be placed after the Kim Reed bit, because it would fit better there. It's fine where it is though

• Although I understand that it isn't the easiest of fields to find references for, I would encourage you to add any sort of response to her work as production designer (if that is the field) on the films that she has been associated with. Without them, it may as well be a list of credits.

• Unfortunately, I could not find anything about this. As I said before, property masters in general, let alone a specific one, are very rarely mentioned in reviews. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it for now. Short but sweet. VedantTalk 15:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You might also want to fix the blue/green links by archiving them. VedantTalk 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Final comments

If there is no way to find any more information on the subject then I do not see a reason to hold the review. It's a pass. VedantTalk 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)