Talk:Sisters at Heart/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this for GAN. Give me a couple hours to read. BenLinus1214^talk 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @Neelix: Comments

Offline sources accepted AGF.

Infobox

• Please fill out the "series" parameter in the infobox.
• Your fair use rationale for the infobox image isn't detailed enough, and right now, I'm not entirely convinced that it's necessary—unless you can provide a specific reason to keep it (i.e. it is discussed for its visual content in one of your sources.

Lead

• This is a lot of detail on the plot for the lead—is there any of that you could cut?
• The blackface thing seems a little misplaced in the lead, as it is only briefly mentioned elsewhere.

Plot

• Per WP:TVPLOT, a plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words, and it should be at the latter end for "more complex plots." In addition, although it is not stated, hour-long broadcasts generally require a word count on the latter end, while half-hour broadcasts generally should be in the lower range. Yours is clocking in at 561 currently, so it needs to be trimmed. I'll look at it again after this is done.

Production

• Should Avedon be credited in the infobox?
• The second paragraph is a bit too long for comfort.
• The Spike Lee part appears to be unsourced…if it's not, be sure there's a footnote after it.
• "Seven years before acting together…" Why is this sentence necessary?
• The second part of the last paragraph sort of seems to go back and forth from topic to topic, which make it a little jarring—try and place similar topics together and use transitional language whenever you can.

Reception

• "foregrounding"? Is that a word? Even if it is, it's a little clunky.
• Just a question: how'd you get access to the newspaper sources? I'm not doubting that they're genuine, but I'm just wondering… also, they're pretty recent--do you have links, even in an archive?

Fix this up, and I'll take another look. BenLinus1214^talk 01:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Ben! I have filled out the "series" parameter in the infobox, expanded the fair use rationale for the lead image, cut the plot portion of the lead down from four sentences to three, removed the mention of blackface from the lead, shortened the "Plot" section to be within the prescribed word count, added Avedon to the infobox, split the second paragraph in the "Production" section in two, added a citation to the sentence about Spike Lee, reworked the final paragraph of the "Production" section for logic and flow, replaced the word "foregrounding", and added links for the two newspaper sources. I only cut the "Plot" section down to 495 words because I think the complexity of this episode's plot justifies that word count; I notice that many of the featured articles about half-hour television episodes have even more than 500 words in their "Plot" sections (ex. "A Quiet Night In", "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson", "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo"). I think the "Seven years before..." sentence is worth retaining because it is interesting to note that, in "Sisters at Heart", Montgomery acted alongside someone she had also acted with before she became famous. To answer your question, I found the newspaper sources through Factiva, which I have found to generally be the most useful journal database for finding sources for the Wikipedia articles I work on. I hope I have addressed your concerns about this article. Please let me know if I have not. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You're quite right on the plot thing. Okay, I think this is good. Pass.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: