Talk:Motherhood (ER)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by RunningTiger123 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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Created by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk). Self-nominated at 17:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC).Reply

  •   User:Some Dude From North Carolina, I'm all for passing this with ALT5, but I'm not clear on the chronology--there seems to be a discrepancy between the source and how you wrote it up. Your article says he was nominated weeks before it aired, so he must have directed it most likely before he was nominated? I can stay on the safe side and just approve your very first hook. Otherwise, the article is long enough and new enough, well-written, etc. (And we need your QPQ.) Drmies (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Drmies: Nice catch! I added two sub-hooks (5a and 5b) after trying to rewrite the sentence. However, if it's no longer "hooky", I encourage you to go with your gut and use the best one of the bunch. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
In case those don't work, I have some more hooks:
@SL93: I have reviewed Verna Grahek Mize. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 15:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Pinging Drmies to see if they want to finish the review. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  Let's keep it simple: we'll go with ALT8. We can't do 6 since that quote isn't in the article, 7 has more words. 4 and 5 won't work since the article doesn't say when the awards were received, if that even was before the episode aired. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: RunningTiger123 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having written several GAs about TV episodes, I'll give this review a go. I should have my comments up in the next day or so. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (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, 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:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Comments:

  • 1a
    • "Motherhood" was written by ... filming From Dusk till Dawn. – This sentence runs on and should probably be split up.
    • On set, the director ... it was "their show." – Also runs too long; split it up
    • "Blackbird" is accidentally wikilinked twice in the synopsis.
    • The IMDb link should be written as "Motherhood", not Motherhood.
    • Add an en dash between Script and Archived in External links.
  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • 1b
    • The maintenance tag says to use dmy dates, but the article mixes mdy dates in the text with dmy dates in the citations. Pick one or the other and, if needed, correct the tag. (From what I've seen, mdy is more common for articles written in American English.)
  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • 2b
    • Source 1 compares the roof scene to Reservoir Dogs, but it doesn't say critics also made the comparison, so change the wording in the image caption to reflect this.
    • Link source 4 to the specific slide with the information (slide 16) so verifying it is easier.
    • Provide page number for source 5.
    • Peary is the editor for source 5, not the author.
    • I'll assume source 8 is valid since I can't find it online – but if possible, provide a link to a database with the information.
    • Saying "tame" for source 15 somewhat misrepresents what the article says. It says that the episode tamed Tarantino's tendencies, not that it was itself tame.
    • Source 16 seems completely misrepresented to me. I'm not convinced it's a negative review, so I would cut that description out. (Maybe the rest of the interview on later pages clarifies his stance better; I'm just going off what I see at the link provided.)
    • After reading all of these reviews, I think that "mixed reviews" is the wrong summary. To me, they seemed generally positive; the notes that Tarantino's style didn't stand out could be taken as both a compliment and a criticism, so I would have a remark about it in the lead but not necessarily link it to whether or not critics liked it. We can discuss this further if you want; you probably know more about the episode than me, so I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this.
  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • 4: See comments regarding sources in 2b.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RunningTiger123: All your suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Awesome! Passing shortly. On a side note, I never realized Tarantino had done TV work and thought this was really interesting. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.