Talk:Mongrels (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I have noticed one or two slightly odd sentences, detailed in the review below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Appears to conform to the MOS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comments below

   C. No original research:

   See comments below

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Suggest "production" section be grouped into sections (see below)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

On the whole, I think this is a good GA candidate, and I'm going to place it on hold for a week or so just for a few bits and pieces to be tidied:

Comments

Plot section

Although it's annoying to ask for precise references for character traits in the "plot" summary (as I imagine these are mainly based on watching the episodes), I would appreciate at least one reference to a source which features a brief summary of the characters (if this exists). I'm sure some of the references in List of Mongrels episodes will suffice for referencing this section.

I'm also a bit confused about some of the wording; for example, there's a big chunk that states "Described as: "The only wild fox in East London with subscriptions to all the major broadsheets (excluding The Sunday Times), Nelson is, as he never tires of introducing himself at dinner parties… 'An urbane fox!'" -

Is this an in-programme description, or from promotional material? I can't tell without a reference of some sort. In addition, do the joke Latin names (i.e "Canis self-absorbedbitchicus") appear in the series? If they do that's fine, but without a ref, a reader cannot tell. (I have only seen parts of the series, not the whole thing).

In addition, the plot section doesn't make it very clear if there is an ongoing story ark in the first series? I know there's a separate list of episodes, but if there's something that happens over the space of the first series which adds to the development (Nelson's quest for love, etc), that might be a suitable addition.

Production section

There are also a few bits of prose I've spotted, especially in the production section that need revising/clarifying, for example:

• "McCrumb criticised the way the show ended (both characters leave where they live), but he suggested of taking the main characters and writing a script about them." - something misssing
• "The new script was then pitched to the BBC. The pitch was based on the same pitch used by The Muppet Show as a tribute to it." - this definitely needs clarifying.
• "When the show began, the character of Nelson originally came across as brash and obnoxious, but this was changed to make him more metrosexual and middle class. Rufus Jones was the first person to play the role." - I think that could do with a clarification. Does it mean "when episode 1 began" or "when production work began"?

There are also a few bits of slightly clunky prose, for example:

• "Destiny was created to be the love interest of Nelson. The character took a long time to develop." - might be better as something like "Developing the character of Destiny, Nelson's love interest, was a challenge to the programme makers."

The whole production section is largely based on the documentary, which is fine, but I think it needs tightening up a bit. In fact, I would recommend that it's rather too long and unmanaged at present. I think that it would benefit from being split into slightly shorter subheadings, for example something like "development", "puppets", "recording", which will act as a good method of grouping material like the development of the show title before the filming information, as it feels a little tacked-on at the moment. Our Good Articles about the slightly older puppet shows Joe 90 and The Secret Service are a good example of a split production section.

Anyway, as I've said, I think with a little bit of tidying this passes the GA criteria. I think the discussion about the show's plagiarism accussation is well-handled, and the other sections are all well-referenced. I'm going to place the article on hold for a week or so. Any questions just ask on my talk page. Bob talk 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making a few changes. However, I can still see a few mistakes in the production section, i.e. "When writing for commissioned series began, the character of Nelson was depicted as being brash and obnoxious", probably as a result of its regrouping. If you could just have another look over the whole production section again, please, just to think about making some sentences a little clearer for the reader? Thanks! Bob talk 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having another look, passed GA - well done! Bob talk 10:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)