Talk:Kind Hearts and Coronets/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "After her death Louis decides to gain revenge on the family" — Can be rephrased as "After her death Louis decides to take revenge on the family"?
• "to take the dukedom" — "dukedom" sounds like stardom and a tad informal. Might consider rephrasing it to "to take the title Duke of Chalfont".

• It's the formal name for a duke's title and office (as opposed to the territory, which is a duchy). Perhaps if I linked it to the Wiktionary definition? - The Bounder (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Bounder: That's good.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Its reputation has lasted well" — Sounds like something one would write in a novel rather than an encyclopaedia. Might say it like "Its has continued to receive favourable reviews over the years".

• I've changed it, but "reputation" is broader than reviews suggests: it is still a film popular with viewers too, and the BFI and Times listings both fall outside reviews.

Favourable reviews applies to everyone (From public, historians and reviewers) in general.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

...Rest tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you: I look forward to your comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Here they are:

• "The Mazzinis were poor but happy until Mazzini died upon seeing Louis, his newborn son, for the first time." — After seeing the film, I couldn't understand this part. All that Guinness says is "They were poor, but they had five happy and harmonious years before my arrival sent Papa off to join the heavenly choir." Was it because he was hideous looking or just die out of happiness and excitement of having a child? Better to clarify on this. (Just a clarification, no need to make any changes)
• "Other filming was undertaken at Ealing Studios" — A better alternative for "Other filming"?
• "The film has been adapted for radio. In March 1965 the BBC Home Service broadcast an adaptation by Gilbert Travers-Thomas, with Dennis Price reprising his role as Louis D'Ascoyne Mazzini. in 1990, BBC Radio 4 produced a new adaptation featuring Robert Powell as the entire D'Ascoyne clan, including Louis, and Timothy Bateson as the hangman, and another for BBC7 featuring Michael Kitchen as Mazzini and Harry Enfield as the D'Ascoyne family." — Reference no. 39 does not mention the year of the radio adaptation and the 1965 as well as the BBC7 versions aren't covered in it too.

That's about it from me. Good job overall with the article.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Ssven2. All these have now been dealt with. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've had to undo a couple of the changes you made. Firstly, "Jr." is almost never used in British English; occasionally "the younger" as a suffix, but the title of Lord can act just as well in this case. Secondly, "Marrying beneath one's station" is the norm in British English too, rather than "status", which carries little meaning in social class terms. I'll make the necessary alterations in line with your comments shortly. Thank you once again, All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the film has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (here). Please see where it can fit. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There is little benefit to RT (in general, but particularly in what is supposed to be encyclopaedic content). The film has been criticised, if even only slightly, so to claim "100%" is doing their readers a disservice. RT is also mostly useless on anything before 2000, particularly from something from the 1940s, and the use of contemporary reviews (and subsequent poll placing) is a much better indicator than a misguided and misleading percentage figure. I think there was a film project consensus not to include them on older films, although I am uncertain about that. - The Bounder (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not heard of a consensus against adding RT scores for pre-2000s films, but you may read Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Limitations before proceeding. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to proceed with any addition of RT information, but the limitations shown on that link are very clear for this film. – The Bounder (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bounder's statement on RT. Even though some contemporary reviews criticise the film, it still shows a 100% rating. Even in some cases, you can see mixed reviews like 2.5/4 being given a fresh rating sometimes and a rotten rating sometimes. Better let it be an external link.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ssven2, I think I have covered all your points, but please let me know if there are any I have missed, or if you would like further work on any aspect. Thank you once again for your comments so far. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is wonderful news, thank you very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)