Talk:Lana Crawford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi June, I'll be glad to take this review. Sorry you've had to wait so long for one. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues I see, and then follow up with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

This looks solid on first pass, and I don't anticipate problems with this getting to GA status. Though I've never watched the show, the article explained the situation clearly enough for me to follow, and also did a good job balancing real-world detail with the fictional.

"They believed that the storyline " -- clarify pronoun
- Done.
when she learned that she had flirted with her boyfriend, she was "less than impressed"" -- clarify pronouns
- Done.
"described the serial's depiction of a lesbian as "a real television advance"" -- this appears to be a misquotation from the source.
- Wow, not sure why I put "television" in the quote.
*"Storylines" -- I wonder if a clearer section header would be "character biography". I suspect that you've written more of these articles than I, though, so I'll defer to your judgement.
- I think "Storylines" is the standard heading, but I don't mind changing it.
  - That's fine with me, then.
*" she realises that they are not right for each other." --is the she here Lana or Buffy (later)?
- It was Buffy, think I've sorted this.
*"She avoids her " -- pronouns getting tangled here again.
- Done.
"They also praised " -- The gender doesn't seem identified here, but "they" is still too informal for a generic person. Maybe just say "The Sydney Star Herald praised," "the paper also said," etc., to avoid the awkward "he or she".
- Done.
  - There's still two more "they"s in the next sentence for the writer, unfortunately.
    - Hopefully resolved now.
*"The episodes showing the kiss between Sky and Lana was shown unedited" -- were there multiple episodes, or is this just a typo? Either way, this needs revision for subject-verb agreement "episodes... was".
- It was a typo.
*I made some minor copyedits as I went; check them over and if you disagree with any, I'm glad to discuss. One thing I particularly worked on was overuse of "revealed" per WP:WTA.
- Ah, I must have been in a "revealed" kinda mood when I wrote this article. Something I must remember to watch out for. Thank you. - JuneGloom Talk 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Take a look at the above and then we'll start in on the criteria checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing this article Khazar2. - JuneGloom Talk 01:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but the sentences "The episode showing the kiss between Sky and Lana was shown unedited in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. It also provided Neighbours with a small increase in ratings" are a little close to their original source [1]; I'd suggest rewording, and you might actually break up these facts to different parts of the article--I'm not sure they need to appear back to back.
- Reworded.
On a related note, some of the responses--

Shortly after, the characters were attacked by talkback callers and conservative groups who thought that they had been "glamorising a high-risk culture" and "making homosexuality look cool".[13] Chief executive of the Christian group Salt Shakers, Peter Stokes, told The Age's Kenneth Nguyen, "It just saddens me that we give our young people the message that these relationships are OK."[13] However, Ray Misson, the head of Melbourne University's arts education department, described the serial's depiction of a lesbian as "a real television advance."[13] Neval believed that gay teenagers, who were already feeling insecure about how their sexuality would be accepted, would be devastated by the negative reaction surrounding the storyline.[13]

--are under the "development" section. Would it make more sense to put all the responses in the same section? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved those sentences to the "reception" section and swapped a few things around, so hopefully it makes sense. I also want to apologise to you for being so slow with this. - JuneGloom Talk 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, there's no hurry at all. Looks like everything's resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass