 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review edit
Nice start! I'm looking forward to you filling in some of your other sources so I can help on that front. -Reagle (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey there! I took Reagle's class in 2016, and built the No Holds Bard article. I think in general you've got the right information, but a couple thoughts:
- You discuss the format in the Premise section ("The hosts begin by introducing their guest..."), so it's possible you could remove the Format/Structure section, or combine the two for flow. You might also want to think about adding the derivation to the top of the article: "The Bechdel Cast is a weekly podcast about the representation of women in film, referencing the Bechdel test. This test, named for Alison Bechdel, investigates whether or not a work includes at least two females conversing about something other than a man." I also think the test itself is named after her, not developed by her.
- It would be interesting to add a column in the Episodes section about whether or not the film passes the Bechedel test. I personally would split the film and guest column too, so that it's easier to skim what they've covered and with who, but that's just a personal preference.
- Is there cover art you could add?
- Add it to the list of shows on the HowStuffWorks article!
Other than that, looking good! -Npilchen (talk)
- Thank you for the input Npilchen (talk), Professor Reagle told me to look to your project as an example, and it was very helpful. In regards to your suggestions, I think I will combine Premise and Format/Structure for better flow. I am hoping to add their Podcast logo art soon, and I will definitely add it to the HowStuffWorks article!
Peer Review edit
Hi Ciana, I made some small tweaks to your draft. Looks good! Casey.ha (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Casey.ha. BTW: you post at the bottom on Wikipedia, so I moved your comment down. -Reagle (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Casey.ha for the edits! Moreno.ci (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ciana, you did a good job and I really like the chart you made. –Hsienhsienlee (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Hsienhsienlee! I like the chart, too, it makes the page look more official in my opinion. Moreno.ci (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer Comment edit
There is nothing obviously wrong with this draft (and there are obviously wrong things with the large majority of new drafts), and any improvements can be made in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review–Notability questionable edit
@Moreno.ci: Hi, I came across this article in the new page review queue. Looking through the article's sources, I don't believe that it meets the general notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia, as there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, the sources provided do appear to demonstrate the notability of Caitlin Durante, who does not have an article yet, and a lot of the content in this article could be repurposed as part of an article on Durante. What are your thoughts on potentially repurposing the article's content? signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)