Talk:Jews Don't Count/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: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It reads pretty well. I've fixed a couple of minor issues in the text; a few more are listed below.

Lead

• "differently than" => "differently from", since this is British English.

• "by Jewish and Israeli press" => "by the Jewish ...", as above.

Done - F

Done - F

Background

• An excellent section, very helpful.

Thanks! - F

Synopsis

• "differently to" => "differently from", as above.

• "the literary ... industries". Is "literary" an "industry" like "film" or "steel"? Don't think so.
  • OK, tentatively replaced with "literary ecosystem". - F

• "the prerogative term 'Yid'"? Perhaps "derogatory" is intended? Same again further down.
  • Silly me, I meant to write "pejorative"! Fixed. - F

• "non-Jewish actors being cast to play Jewish roles show that" => "the casting of non-Jewish actors to play Jewish roles shows that".

• "explores Jewish actors hiding" => "explores how Jewish actors hide".

• Wikilink Zionism.

• "Publication and reception" --- odd bedfellows; the usual rule for headings is "just one subject", so the word "and" is a small warning flag. I suggest that since the first paragraph takes care of "Publication", we make that a separate section. "Reception" can then begin with the second paragraph.

• Sarah Annes Brown is not just redlinked on English Wiki, but absent from all other Wikis, so the "Wikidata" link isn't terribly helpful (and I'd say it was anomalous, really). Best ditch it.

• "referring to it a 'mini masterpiece" => "calling it a 'mini...'"

• " criticising that Baddiel 'ducks the challenge'" => "stating that..."

Done others - F

Documentary adaptation

• Suggest renaming the subsection "Reception" to "Reception of documentary" so we don't have two sections with the same name.

Done - F

Images

• Images all properly licensed on Commons, and all seem reasonably relevant.

Sources

• What's going on with the Primary refs, in refs [1] .. [4] we have four different formats? I'd suggest that the style of [1] is correct for all four of 'em, and we should have the full citation for the book below (in "Sources" or similar), just once.

• "Secondary" refs [1] and [21] are by Baddiel himself ...

• Not sure why Brown and Brunstein are redlinked, probably best just to remove the links here.

Removed redlinks, have moved the secondary sources. To explain the messiness with the primaries: I'm using them as sources to cite the publication of each individual edition of the book (following some off-wiki advice), so there's four refs there. If I combine them into one "Sources" sfn, then the citations for the versions would be lost. What would you reccomemend doing? I could change the references over to WorldCat instead of citing the books themselves?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  21:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: just mentioning you in case you haven't seen this  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, as I said the initial sfn represents the right approach. Add a Sources section, list the full ref there in a cite book template, and use standard sfn refs each with different page of chapter details for all four refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see how this works - I'm not citing different pages or chapters of the same publications, I'm citing four different editions. Those 4 refs are supposed to be the different publications of Jews Don't Count. The first edition, published in 2021, doesn't have any information about the Portuguese translation in 2022?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  11:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)  Frzzl  talk; contribs  11:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Then all four editions should be cited in full with all the usual cite book parameters --- last, first, title, edition, publisher, date, isbn, either inline or in Sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, will reformat as such 👍  Frzzl  talk; contribs  12:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary

This is a lively and interesting review that gives a good idea of its subject and how it was received. I've made only a few minor comments and hope to see this as a GA soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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.