Wikipedia

Talk:The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge/GA1

< Talk:The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Johanna in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! This is currently second on my "to review" list. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • It should be "second episode of the third series of the British…"
  • Why is the Production section before the Plot?
    • I like it that way because it feels chronological- here's how they made the episode, then here's the episode, followed by here's what was going on in the episode, followed by here's what people said in response to the episode. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Probably should be "mostly in story order" not "mostly story order"
  • "The same location had previously been used" Something's gone wrong with this sentence, as it's a bit convoluted. Split the sentence or do something to fix it.
  • "they cannot be parodied." Change tense--"could not have been"
  • "As he had appeared in Horrible Histories, he added, for Shearsmith, 'a weight of royalty'." I don't really understand what this quote is getting at. Is there more you could add?
    • Not really- the idea is that he brings something significant to the role because he starred in Horrible Histories, which was highly successful and involved lots of dressing up as peasants and such. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • "This constraint led to a change in the script, seeing the crowd…" Shouldn't it be a colon here?
  • In the first sentence about Goody Two-Shoes, you should say the actress's name. :)
    • I don't know it! She wasn't credited- she's "just" an extra, but it was mentioned in the commentary as interesting because she'd previously starred in Psychoville (where, again, she wasn't credited). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • "Post-production editing was required for the final scene" This wording is redundant--editing is required for every scene. :) Something like "Several post-production effects were required for the final scene…"
  • Should the "Analysis" section be renamed "themes and analysis" or "themes"?
  • In this section, I would also really make sure that you attribute all the analyses to outside parties in the text.
    • I understand this desire, but I do think it is helpful to present more uncontroversial elements in Wikipedia's own voice. For example, we don't need to list literary critics in the text to say that Dracula is a gothic horror novel or Animal Farm is an allegory. I think this is an art rather than a science, so I may have gotten the balance wrong here- is there a particular part you're worried about? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I would try to reorganize the reception section a little bit and also put critical consensus sentences. I would organize it into positive and negative, but you can choose a different way as long as it's organized and logical.
    • I thought I had! I don't so much like the positive/negative split, I prefer thematic: The first paragraph is overall response (with comparisons to other episodes), the second paragraph is the humour, the third paragraph looks at plot and writing (especially dialogue) leading into the acting. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Used Checklinks and everything appears to be in order. No doubts about the reliability of most of the refs, but please explain your rationale for using "Dan's Media Digest" and "beyondthejoke.co.uk".
    • Yeah, you've got the two suspect ones! Beyond the Joke is the personal website of the professional comedy critic and author Bruce Dessau, while Dan's Media Digest is the blog of the freelance television journalist Dan Owens, who has written for reputable sources including MSN (specifically on Inside No. 9, as it happens) and The Guardian. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Also, for whatever reason, instead of listing The Guardian as its proper name, you use its web address, so fix that.

@J Milburn: Good work as always! :) Just a few stuff to clarify/do before I can pass. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for the review! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
@J Milburn: Wonderful. Pass. Just in case you were wondering, the Boys Don't Cry FAC is going really well! I probably wouldn't have gotten this far without you, so thanks. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
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:  
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Trial_of_Elizabeth_Gadge/GA1&oldid=1061534197"