Wikipedia

Talk:Disgraced/GA1

< Talk:Disgraced
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Quadell in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago35 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nominator: TonyTheTiger

Hello again. This looks like a fascinating play, and the article is a strong GA nominee. Most of the GA criteria pass right away, but I have found a few issues.

Resolved issues
  • Clarity: I don't know what an "Islamic-themed blonde artist wife" is. Also, when the text says "charges of financing terrorist-supporting groups that may be trumped-up", it sounds like the groups might be trumped up, but I think you mean the charges.
  • Fiction: Plots should be in present case, usually. For my clarification, did the play show all of the events described? Or did the play only show the dinner conversation? If the former, the order of the events in Plot should be corrected, and everything should be put in present tense. If the latter, the text should make that clear (with "Amir describes to his guests..." or something.)
    Later follow-up: If the entire play takes place over a single dinner party (which I suspect is the case), then the plot section should say that, perhaps in an introductory sentence that also says the play is 90 minutes. The plot section should describe the actual shows events in present tense (e.g. "Amir tells his guests [whatever], but Abe and Isaac react [however].") Also, since the casting section gives all their names, the plot section should give the names of the characters and not just descriptions like "an ex-Muslim, an African-American", etc. Also, there are a few other instances of poor wording, such as "dining over the topic", "when he hosts a colleague", etc. I think it would be best to rewrite the plot section entirely, or very nearly so.
I've read all the sources for the plot section, plus a Variety review, and I can't tell what's shown onscreen and what's only discussed. We can't go beyond the sources, so we'll have to make due with what we have. I like the changes you've made so far to the "plot" section, especially with tenses, but I feel a few more changes are necessary.
  • The first sentence, introducing the two characters with a string of descriptors, is very awkward. What if the first sentence were something like this? "In the 90-minute, one-act play, lawyer Amir Kapoor and his wife Emily host an Upper East Side dinner." The next sentence could describe both these characters in a more natural way.
  • After the sentence "The case becomes dinner conversation when he hosts a colleague from work and her husband", those two characters should be mentioned by name and described, just as the other characters have been. The sources support this.
Once you do that, I think the "plot" section should be fine. – Quadell (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (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:  
    All issues have been resolved, and I'm happy to promote this article. – Quadell (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Outside opinions

edit

I always welcome outside opinions, though I will pass or fail this article based on my own assessment of whether the article fulfills our GA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI, Ssilvers always has a lot of commentary on the plays and musicals. I suspect he may have more comments than you. He always is of the opinion that there is a lot more work to meet his standards. Expect a 2nd opinion regardless of what you think about this. He is also likely to help me respond to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have been summoned! I don't care about this article, but it is not GA quality yet. Just looking at it for 2 seconds, I see that it does not have an adequte WP:LEAD section or plot summary, and little discussion of the original production: how was it designed and staged? How did the staging illuminate the themes? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't care about Pulitzer Prize-winner? Given some of the small-time things that I have done that you have spent time with, I am a bit surprised. Well, I didn't want to sneak one past you since you always seem to want to comment. Feel free to go back to whatever you were doing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disgraced/GA1&oldid=584896164"