Talk:The Haunting of Amphipolis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It may take a day or two for me to complete the review. You do NOT need to wait until the review is complete to start responding to my comments. If you disagree with any of my suggestions, please feel free to discuss the issue. Once complete, I will be claiming this review for points in the 2018 Wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   At the end of the first paragraph, greater good is in quotation marks. If this line comes from dialogue in the show, it should be attributed. If it's a third party interpretation, it needs a source and inline attribution. This aspect of their relationship isn't noted on Gabrielle's character article. Alternatively, this part of the sentence could just be removed. I think it's enough to say she's accompanied by her friend without specifying her friend's precise role.

   Removed the quotation marks. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   "Xena's childhood home is haunted and that the demon Mephistopheles is responsible for the hauntings" - is there a way to avoid the awkward repetition of haunt? Maybe "Xena's childhood home is haunted by the demon Mephistopheles, who is responsible for the town's current state."?

   Removed second haunting. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   "[the episode] features more horror-related elements than previous episodes". I don't see where this is sourced in the article.

   Removed this sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   "critics who praised its horror elements and dark tone and multiple scenes involving Gabrielle's demonic encounters, and Eve being confronted" - lots of ands here. The first two should be commas.

   I split the setentence into two and made sure I found a synonym to "praise", to avoid repetition. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   Plot

   This is my copy editing to the plot section. I tried to make it more concise, but please make any corrections needed if I misinterpreted something.

   They were just fine. Thank you. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   What is a Hellmouth?

   The entrance to Hell. And apparently, it is an actual thing. I always assumed it came from Buffy. Added the wiki-link. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   Production

   "He described the experience as challenging to him as a director" - this is wordy. Maybe "He described the experience as a directing challenge"?

   Changed the sentence a little. Hope it's okay. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   I like yours better, actually. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   Broadcast and release

   Is there a better source available for the VHS and DVD releases than Amazon?

   For the DVD release I also found TVShowsOnDVD.com. Unfortunately, the VHS release doesn't appear to have receives as much coverage and Amazon is most likely the most reliable source out there. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   I thought that might be the case. Thanks for looking. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   Reception

   no concern

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No concern per Earwig

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   no concern

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no concern

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   no concern

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

   The Mephistopheles image should have some WP:ALTTEXT describing what is shown in the picture. I suggest something like "An 1828 lithograph by Eugène Delacroix showing Mephistopheles flying over Wittenberg."

   I placed the alt text you wrote. However, I was wondering, the infobox doesn't have any alt text but the information provided there is more or less informative on the image itself. Do you think I should add alt text there as well? PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   If the caption is clear enough, I don't add it. I have seen some editors put alt=see caption, but I don't think that's necessary. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass pending a few minor notes Argento Surfer (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

   Happy to pass this one. Thanks for the quick response! Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

   I tried pinging your and asking whether further changes were necessary but I got "edit conflict" 😂. Oh well. Thank you. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)