Son of God (TV series) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if I can get it to GA standard. Having never written an article about a documentary series before, my main area of concern is the "Episodes" section - is the way that it jumps from past to present tense appropriate? Most other synopses that I've found on Wikipedia are written in the present tense, but I'm not entirely sure. I also welcome any advice on how to improve the quality of the prose, and anything else that could make the article better. Thanks very much in advance, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Interesting, and no serious problems with the prose, but a little more work needs to be done. As to a possible GA nomination, it's hard to say how it would fare. Absolute rubbish sometimes gets the GA insignia, while worthy and well-constructed articles may not; it's all down to the whim of an individual reviewer who may or may not be competent to exercise judgement. Here are some areas where I think the article could be improved.
- Lead
- Citations: awards are dealt with in the main text and don't need triple-citation in the first line of the lead. Other facts (e.g. the computer-generated image) should be cited as the occur in the text.
- Removed all.
- Generally, the lead should be a brief overview of the article, without recourse to detail. At present the third paragraph has too much critical reception detail. For example, the quoted comments properly belong in the critical reception section.
- Rewritten third paragraph to contain fewer quotes.
- Personally I don't like the construction "countries such as", and would recommend a slight rephrase.
- Rephrased slightly.
- Production
- Too many redlinks in the fitsrt paragraph; realistically, how many of these are going to be the subject of WP articles (unless you propose to create stubs)?
- Whittled down to just one red link.
- "...Ruth Pitt, who had worked on similar documentaries such as 42 Up and Channel 4's The State of Marriage." To what is "similar" referring?
- Well, "similar" is the sense that they were documentaries, like Son of God. Have removed the word, since it is clearly confusing.
- I don't think presenters are "cast"; Bowen wasn't playing a role. Suggest "chosen"
- Done.
- "Despite not being religious himself..." The word "himself" is redundant
- Removed.
- "...his narration was dubbed by American actor Tom Hodgkins." Can you clarify: were Bowen's words simply spoken by Tom Hodgkins (as implied by "dubbed"), or was a different narration used?
- Changed "dubbed" to "redubbed". Does that it clearer?
- "...became popular enough to be still performed live several years after the show had finished airing". Some very awkward phrasing here - and why does this incidental fact require triple citation? (You tend to use multiple citations rather frequently, often without obvious need)
- Yeah, I guess that it is a somewhat minor fact. Have removed it entirely.
- Episodes
A general criticism of the episode sections might be that Bowen is too prominent; there's a tendency to present everything through his eyes.
- Hmm... Not really sure how I can change that, I'm afraid - the series was pretty much told from his perspective. I shall have a think about it.
- Be consistent about representing numbers greater than 10 either numerically or written out.
- Found and changed all (I think).
- I found this very confusing: "According to astronomer Dr. Michael Molner, astrologers from around time of Herod the Great would have believed that Aries would have symbolised his kingdom and the lands that he controlled – during 6 BC, the year that some scholars theorise that Jesus was born, a rare planetary alignment meant that Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun and the Moon would have all appeared in Aries." I'm not sure what you mean by "appeared in Aries", but the whole passage requires clarification.
- Ah, yes, I should really have specified that it was the constellation Aries. Have done that now.
- "Jewish, pagan and Christian sources all confirm that Jesus was born out of wedlock, as do both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke." Hmmm, yes... but the Christians also claim that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Surely, that needs to be mentioned?
- That's true, but that was never mentioned in the programme. To me, including it would be original research.
- "the former site of Jerusalem's temple" - it's not the "former" site.
- Removed.
- "The Mission" section needs tightening up. The first paragraph in particular is disjointed, with leaps from Jerusalem to the Galilee boat, to Peter's house, etc., and no explanation as to who Hanin ben Dosa was, thereby forcing your readers to use a link. There are other instances, e.g. "Jehohanan", where your readers can only keep abreast of the story by using links. Your article needs as far as possible to be self-contained.
- Expanded those two points, and I shall look out for some more.
- "Experiments performed by Zugibe in Rutland County, Vermont also suggest that the traditional view of Jesus's crucifixion, with the nails of the cross driven through his hands rather than wrists, may have been possible if his feet were supported." What on earth were these "experiments"? Who did they try it out on?
- Have now clarified the details of the experiments. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- "a leading department of forensic science": doesn't the source identify this?
- No, unfortunately. But I shall have another look.
- In the final paragraph of the "Final Hours" section, there is rather repetitive prose, with "a facial reconstruction ", "a face is constructed" and "The face that Neave constructs" all close together in the first three lines. Slight rephrasing could avoid this.
- Rewritten the middle one to try to avoid repetition.
- Reception
- General point: it isn't necessary to use quote marks for everyday commonplace expressions, e.g. "well placed", "rather interesting", etc. These should be absorbed in paraphrases.
- Removed most of them I think.
- "and one of two consultants" - identify?
- Rewritten.
- Ratings and awards
- "considerably high" doesn't make sense. Perhaps "considered high"?
- Changed.
- The word "Americans" is redundant at the end of the second sentence (you don't know if all 12 million viewers were Americans)
- Removed.
- There's not enough information to justify the adoption of a tabular format. This information should be rendered in prose.
- Distribution
- Why the French "premièred"?
- It's a pretty common word in English too. I have changed to "premiered", if that's any improvement.
- "As of 13 October 2011" - maybe update? Also, the words "to buy" later in the sentence are unnecessary.
- Done.
- Link DVD, VHS
- Done.
- Sequel
- How can a programme about Moses be described as a "sequel" to the Jesus programmes?. By definition a sequel derives from or continues a previously related story - it "follows on".
- Renamed section header.
I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, so if you want to raise a question with me, or if you'd like to look again, please alert me via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review and your comments, Brian! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)