Talk:Séance Time

Sources

• Gilbert-
• Chater-
• Power-
• Segal and Raeside-
• Chater2-
• Baylis-

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Séance Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 11:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I will get to this by Sunday. NumerounovedantTalk 11:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

"Hives (Shearsmith) sits her at a table" - Why is it relevant?

Seances typically take place at a table; the characters really over-egg it, as well ("Please be seated" and all that). Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

wikilink "seance"

Now linked in the lead, production section and plot. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

" but they had not previously had an idea for an original approach" - it is too wordy IMO. How about simply - " but had not had an idea for an original approach"

I've rejigged; I specified "previously" because it seems like the way approached it here was original. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Production

A sub-heading for "Development" in the beginning

I've gone for "Writing and filming" instead; how's that? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The filming part could go after the second paragraph

Yes, good idea. I have rejigged those first two paragraphs a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, but I'll go through the rest in a couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thanks- just noting that I have seen this; I'm just waiting on receiving the remainder of your comments before making changes. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"the wetness of Terry's clothes" - Terry's wet clothes maybe?

No- the clothes were not added, it was only the wetness. I agree that it's not very prosaic, but it's a slightly odd idea I'm putting across. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"it was instead shown at 10pm on Wednesday 29 April at 10pm in most of the UK, and at 11.20pm in Northern Ireland." - a little clumsy if the time is same for US and UK why mention separately?

There is no mention of the US? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You mention 10pm twice, I presumed it might have aired separately (in the US), which is clearly not the case here. So, why mention 10pm twice? - "shown at 10pm on Wednesday 29 April at 10pm in most of the UK" NumerounovedantTalk 14:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite right; I can't believe I missed that. I've made some fixes. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Rest looks good. Great work! NumerounovedantTalk 10:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to have a look through. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the production section might work better with "Writing and development" followed by "Casting and Characters" and lastly "Filming" (with the last paragraph from writing). But it's strictly a suggestion, it is perfectly good the way it is presently. As soon as these comments are addressed I'll be happy to give the verdict. NumerounovedantTalk 14:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I have merged the "release" section in with filming to prevent it from being a very short section. I've also renamed "Horror and comedy" (which is a title I really disliked) to "Style". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. Another great article! Pass. NumerounovedantTalk 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much- I appreciate the review! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style

There seems to be a bit of a dissagreement over the manual of style with this edit, I belive it should be cited as "The Gaurdian" What's your take? Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with "The Guardian", only because its misspelled there. To copy and paste what I said earlier, using the domain name "degrades the quality of the article text [and the implied quality of its citations] by making the online branch of a major newspaper of record look like its at the same level as the average tabloid site. Additionally, due to today's market circumstances, all newspapers must be multi-platform operations in order to remain relevant, so the online component of a newspaper is just as important, if not the same level, as the print version." It is also a common name. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Weegeerunner, who "belives" that The Guardian is appropriately referred to as "The Gaurdian" or "the guardian", is advised that they may not be the best authority on issues of this sort. To copy what I have said elsewhere to ViperSnake: "Your claim tha"t The Guardian's website must not be referred to in-text as theguardian.com because of the possibility that it is not online exclusive content degrades the quality of the article text (potentially, and, based on my search, probably) by making it wrong. I would not object to referring to it as "the website of The Guardian"; do you have any objection to this alternative wording?" Josh Milburn (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a mouthful, way too long for what its worth. I don't see anything wrong with citing it as simply, "The Guardian." Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian is a British national daily newspaper. Do you have any evidence that this was published in The Guardian? As I have said elsewhere, I have reason to believe that it wasn't. If you do not have any evidence, why are you so keen for this article to make a claim that is probably untrue? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So basically, there is an implication that referring to it by name explicitly refers to the paper? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian refers to the newspaper. If you take a look at our article on the newspaper, the website is referred to directly several times as variously "its website", "The Guardian website", "the main Guardian website", "the website", "Website", one of the paper's "online offshoots", the "UK online edition theguardian.com", "The newspaper's online edition" and so on. We even have our own article on theguardian.com, where it is described as "a British news and media website owned by the Guardian Media Group. It contains nearly all of the content of the newspapers The Guardian and The Observer, as well as a substantial body of web-only work produced by its own staff, including a rolling news service." The two of you have repeatedly changed this article so that it claims that content which, as far as I can tell, is exclusive to the "British news and media website" theguardian.com was written for "British national daily newspaper" The Guardian. I support changing it back so that the article correctly refers to that content as having been written for theguardian.com. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Séance Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150709165800/http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/minutes-Steve-Pemberton/story-25842408-detail/story.html to http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/minutes-Steve-Pemberton/story-25842408-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)