Talk:Man Down (Holby City)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Soaper1234 in topic GA Review

Did you know? nomination edit

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moved to mainspace by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC).Reply

  • Article is new enough, is huge, and is written in a careful and encyclopedic way. No copyvio issues: quotations are attributed properly. The hooks are short enough and are all stated in the article with an inline source, usually backed by multiple sources. I think it's desirable to link Holby City in the hooks. I personally think ALT1 is the most interesting; the others are more normal things I would expect to happen in creating a TV episode. The source for ALT1 doesn't explicitly mention stunts, but it mentions being on the edge of a roof with a harness, so a stunt is the fair way to summarise that in a word. Looking at another source from the article — ref 7 — the shot is explicitly described as a stunt. Better to have singular "stunt" rather than "stunts". For ALT2: the hook mentions the actor talking to friends and medical professionals, but the given source says the actor consulted people he knew, and the programme worked with a mental health charity, so this source doesn't specify that the actor spoke with medical professionals. In the article, the statement is backed by a different source which is a broadcast interview, so assuming good faith on that. Also note typo in ALT2 "prepartion". QPQ done.
So the article definitely qualifies, and the three hooks qualify (once the typo's fixed and maybe with the addition of the Holby City wikilink, and assuming goof faith for the ALT2 ref.)- my issues were with the sources suggested in this nomination rather than the sources which are used in the article. Good to go with a preference for ALT1 (but prefer "stunt" in the singular).   MartinPoulter (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MartinPoulter: Thank you for the review. I'm happy with ALT1, as now edited. Soaper1234 - talk 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Man Down (Holby City)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 15:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Responded to all your comments below. Soaper1234 - talk 22:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead edit

  • Don't use small font in the infobox per WP:SMALLFONT.
  • "who he" → "with who he"
  • Quotations need sources per WP:REF.
  • "The episodes serves" → "The episode serves"
  • Since its a type of camera, uses of Steadicam should be capitalized.
  • Is "benefitied" a typo or a British variant of the word?
  • "had walk" → "had walked"

Plot edit

  • Without the parenthetical names, the plot is at 491 words. Try getting it to 400 per MOS:TVPLOT.
  • "A flashbacks" → "A flashback" or "Flashbacks"
  • There appears to be a word missing in between "into hospital".

Production edit

  • Remove the comma after "had been dropped".
  • "would featured" → "would be featured"
  • "portrayl" appears to be a typo.
  • "Holby City have" → "Holby City has"
  • "rather using the traditional steadicam" → "rather than using the traditional Steadicam"

Promotion and broadcast edit

  • "insits" → "insist"
  • Promotional material should list reactions to the content not just "[content] aired [date]" per WP:TRAILER.

Reception edit

  • This section looks good.

References and notes edit

  • In the notes, change "see [...]" to "As depicted in [...]" per consistency with other GA-articles (similar example).
  • Archive all archivable sources (either manually or with this tool).

Progress edit

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·