Talk:The Understudy (Inside No. 9)/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, following an initial review, it appears this article meets most of the criteria for Good Article status! I am surprised that it has gone so long without receiving its GAR, so it is a sincere privilege for me to review it more thoroughly in the coming days. I will be sharing my suggestions and comments here, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process. -- Caponer (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

J Milburn, I've conducted a thorough review of this article, and I have the following comments and suggestions to improve this article to Good Article status! You've done a tremendous job of comprehensively illustrating the episode's production, plot, and reception in line with established Wikipedia precedent for television episode articles. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with my below suggestions and comments in the meantime. Once again, thank you for your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful to mention the episode's viewership data at the end of the lead's second paragraph? The "Reception" section seems to be underrepresented in the lead and this could balance the lead's overall content.
- Done, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of the article's lead, should there be a mention that the five-act structure was utilized to mirror theatrical norms?
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's mentioned in the article's lead that the episode took longer to write, should it also state that the writers re-scripted several times because of their uncertainly of whether the characters should be amateurs, members of a touring company, or professionals?
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be an Oxford comma following The Twilight Zone in the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Production."
- I don't mind either way, so done! J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review- do check the lead and make sure you're happy with the new phrasing. Hopefully I'll find time to do the last episode (which was genuinely very scary) before tackling the main series article. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, thank you for the opportunity to allow me to conduct this review. The lead section reads very well, and I am more than happy with the new phrasing! I look forward to reading your future No. 9 articles! It is a privilege to hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts and kind words. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]