| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article receives a lot of page views (over 600,000 in the last 30 days). It would be helpful for someone who has not been involved in the article to check it against the GA criteria.
Thanks, The JPStalk to me 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Sarastro
Overall, this looks very, very good. My only minor issue is that there is some inconsistency in coverage and parts need updating to reflect the reaction to Series 2. The prose is very good, with just one or two points to clear up, and it seems to cover everything very thoroughly. I cannot imagine this having any problems passing GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the lead needs a little more about the actual series, and possibly some of the events from it; per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to reflect everything in the article.ω Awaiting
- "and will reportedly air in 2013": Reportedly is a little weak. Who says so? Better to give this.
Done - "The two writers are both big Sherlock Holmes fans;[6] The theme of "friendship" appealed to both Gatiss and Moffat.": There should not be a capital letter after the semi-colon. To be honest, I do not really see a connection between the parts of this sentence and I think they would be better split. Done
- "The writers realised that someone else would have the same idea to produce a modern-day version.": I know what this is getting at, but I'm not sure it makes it clear for the reader. I think the point was that they though someone was almost certain to do their idea eventually, so they wanted to get there before anyone else did. Not sure that this comes across. Done
- "Gatiss has criticised recent television adaptations of the Conan Doyle stories as "too reverential and too slow", aiming instead to be as irreverent to the canon as the 1930s and 1940s films starring Basil Rathbone.": Suggests that it was the "reverential" adaptations which were aiming to be irreverent to the canon.
Not sure - "In the DVD audio commentary, Moffat and Gatiss say they decided that everything that had previously been done about Sherlock Holmes was canonical: not just the Conan Doyle stories but the Rathbone and Granada Television versions." I don't really see how this affects the series, as it does not reference any other "version". It may be interesting in terms of Moffat and Gatiss' views, but I can't see that it has a place here. Or anywhere in the article, to be honest. Done
- In addition, I don't really see the need to refer to "canonical". For the purposes of this article, it may be better to just say "Conan Doyle's books" or similar. Not sure
- "reported to have cost £800,000": Reported by who? Done
- "The original pilot was included as part of the series on DVD.": Does not quite make sense. Perhaps "included on the DVD of the first series". Done
- "The pilot, says journalist Mark Lawson…" How does he know, and what makes him an authority. Done
- "The actor was cast after a reading.": Possibly the reader will not know what a reading is, and may imagine something to do with tarot cards! Done
- Is it worth making the link with the drug habit in the original series and the nicotine patches; this seemed to be a feature of the second series. Not sure
- "However, Moffat turned the character "more Victorian" in the second series": This is a little vague; what does it mean? Done
- "with Martin Freeman eventually taking the role": "with noun verb-ing" is not the best sentence structure. Maybe "and Martin Freeman eventually took the role". Done
- "The writers said that Freeman's casting developed the way in which Cumberbatch played Holmes.[8] Journalist Victoria Thorpe said, "Freeman's dependable, capable Watson unlocks this modern Holmes, a man who now describes himself as 'a high-functioning sociopath'."" A little odd to have a sentence saying that the writers said something, backed up by a quote from an unconnected journalist. She is referring to how the actors come across on the screen, not what the writers/actors intended following the casting of Freeman, Done
- "His first name is revealed to be Greg in "The Hounds of Baskerville".": For completeness, a ref would be good here. Done
- Anything on the casting of other regular cast, or on guest stars? Not sure
- There seems to be an awful lot on the filming of the pilot, but very little on the filming of the rest of the two series. I think the minimal approach taken to the filming of the two series is fine, and perhaps the detail on the pilot filming could be trimmed back? Done
- Anything on the sets; for example the Baker Street interior? Or maybe move the detail on the pilot and the "Baker Street" location to a more general section.
- Episodes: Filming dates are given for S2, but not for S1. I think both or none are needed and the info may be better in the filming section anyway. Done
- Ditto broadcast dates not consistent in this section. S2 given, S1 not. Done
- Reception: This is exclusively from the first series. I think it needs something to reflect the reception to the 2012 series, including the continued largely positive reviews. Also, what about the 2012 BAFTAs; Scott won an award, but the series was nominated in several categories. Done
- I also recall that there was some controversy over S2, for example over the role of Irene Adler. And maybe put in a little more here over the speculation over the ending? Done
- Is it worth putting in somewhere how the tie-in websites actually link to the broadcast series and are referenced in it? Not sure
- References not checked and no spot-checks done.
- One or two more images would be good, but not essential.
I do not watch peer reviews, so please contact me on my talk page if there are any issues or further responses are needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)