Talk:Eaten Alive (TV program)/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 00:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I will review this soon. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 00:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"purportedly to feature" grammar

Do you have a suggestion? I am not sure what wording is better, and this was not corrected during the article's copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your link from "not containing the content" to false advertising might be considered a WP:EASTER, so I would just link it directly

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"while it did feature Rosolie attempting to feed himself to an anaconda, the snake did attack, but did not swallow Rosolie as the title of the special implied…" sentence structure here. Put an "and" between the first and second clauses, and say "but it did not"

Do you like the currently wording better? I found the singe sentence to be way too long. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"went as far as to compare" on the borderline of non-neutral. Just "compared" is good enough.

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the first paragraph of Development and that block quote both cited to ref 2 and 3? If so, I would ref name them and put them a couple times through the paragraph and quote for easier access to refs.

Added ref. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At one point in the Development section, you make the typo of spelling his name "Rosoli"

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the work/publisher parameters of the references, link to the publications where possible.

The linking seems appropriate to me. Do you mean to add publishers for the publications, or…?

For some reason, I'm not noticing any problems before. I might have just been seeing things, but I thought there were no links to any of the publications before. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the special is 120 minutes, do you think that there should be more details added to the synopsis or is this enough, especially because it was probably 2 hours including ads?

Seems reasonable to me (keep in mind, to some degree I am just reviewing this article as well since I did not expand the article). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that quote from Rosolie in the Synopsis and not the next section?

Why would his explanation of what went wrong go in a Broadcast and reception section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a little bit more, I guess it makes more sense where it is. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the WP:EASTER concern in this section with the same link

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an image you could place in the Broadcast and Reception section?

Not one I can think of (one that would greatly benefit the article). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the special is in the "List of television series considered the worst" article, but who exactly said it was?

I am not sure if someone specifically said the special was "the worst", but it is included in the list, so it seems appropriate to display in the See also section. If you take issue with the claim itself, we can post a note on the list's talk page. If the special were removed from the list, then of course we would remove the See also link in this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: That's all I have! It's a very nice article and I will be happy to pass once this is cleared up. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will address your concerns as soon as possible, though that may not be for a couple days since I am traveling and due to the holiday. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done with round of changes. Please let me know your thoughts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I am very happy to pass now! If you get a chance, I have several nominated articles in the television section. If you could review one, I would appreciate it, but you don't have to. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and assistance. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 4 January 2016 (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.