Talk:Sardines (Inside No. 9)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 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:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Production "Written by Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith, it premiered on BBC2 on 5 February 2014. The episode features a stand-alone plot revolving around a group of adults, who are non-recurring characters, playing sardines at an engagement party. The story takes place entirely in the bedroom of a country house, with much of the filming taking place inside a wardrobe. As more characters arrive in the room and step into the wardrobe, secrets shared by some of the characters are revealed. Pemberton and Shearsmith wrote the episode with the intention of evoking a feeling of claustrophobia in viewers." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Plot "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 3: Cast "In addition to the writers, the episode starred Katherine Parkinson, Tim Key, Luke Pasqualino, Ophelia Lovibond, Anne Reid, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Anna Chancellor, Marc Wootton, Ben Willbond and Timothy West." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 4: Reception "The cast and writing were praised by television critics, and the episode was chosen as pick of the day in a number of publications. On its first showing, "Sardines" was watched by 1.1 million viewers, which was 5.6% of the audience." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Production "Written by Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith, it premiered on BBC2 on 5 February 2014. The episode features a stand-alone plot revolving around a group of adults, who are non-recurring characters, playing sardines at an engagement party. The story takes place entirely in the bedroom of a country house, with much of the filming taking place inside a wardrobe. As more characters arrive in the room and step into the wardrobe, secrets shared by some of the characters are revealed. Pemberton and Shearsmith wrote the episode with the intention of evoking a feeling of claustrophobia in viewers." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Plot "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Cast "In addition to the writers, the episode starred Katherine Parkinson, Tim Key, Luke Pasqualino, Ophelia Lovibond, Anne Reid, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Anna Chancellor, Marc Wootton, Ben Willbond and Timothy West." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Reception "The cast and writing were praised by television critics, and the episode was chosen as pick of the day in a number of publications. On its first showing, "Sardines" was watched by 1.1 million viewers, which was 5.6% of the audience." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done ""Sardines" is the first episode of British dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9." Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER) Fix "A hand is seen turning a key in a lock. "Ian" leans against the wardrobe, and begins to sing the sardine song. He sprays lighter fluid as Andrew bangs on the inside of the wardrobe. Carl says "Pip?", as "Ian" ignites a lighter." in the Plot section. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license) (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Josh, please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seabuckthorn, thank you for your quick and thorough review. I have adjusted the plot section to avoid the short paragraph and added more plot details to the lead. If you like, I could be more explicit about the fact that child abuse is discussed, though I'd rather not add the plot twist to the lead. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks! The plot section looks perfect now. Thanks, Josh, very much for your extraordinary diligence, care and precision in your contributions. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)