Talk:Skins (British TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I'm going to post problems/solutions as I find them here, rather than all in one review, so as to give contributors a chance to work on changes required. Other editors who have not been major contributors are welcome to leave theirs beneath my signature.

1. The biggest problem I see is that the character lists duplicate a lot of material from the plot synopses. The latter are well constructed and give a good impression of the intereaction between characters and the main plots of each epsiode and series. According to WP:SS, I also suggest main article links under each sub-section, rather merely at the top of the section.

A television article neeeds a cast list, which could be embedded either above or below the plot section. Since there is a well constructed and detailed free-standing seperate list, I suggest the one in this article be trimmed down.

This point has been completed. — Pretzels^Hii! 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. The sub-sections "Series 5" and "Future" both contain information about putative future projects related to the programme. They should be combined into a single, final section of the article. Also double check that information is up-to-date.

This point has been completed. — Pretzels^Hii! 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Series 3 & 4 plot synopsis need to be copyedited for tone, clarity and use of the future tense. They are slightly difficult to follow. Referring to the real world more would lend better structure, making it easier to follow, and help avoid in-universe perspective.

E.g. "In epsiode five, JJ atones for his lack of application to academic work."

Also, at the time of review, it is not clear whether the events have yet transpired or not.

I have now renovated that section.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Zythe. — Pretzels^Hii! 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Production section is good in referencing, tone etc. The only problem is that it is a little scant. In particular more information about the writing would be good, it seems particularly notable here.

5. The Critical Reception section is weak. The series recieved much comment in the UK on its release, especially regarding the suitability of its content for a teenage viewership. This is a very notable aspect of the reception of the television programme and requires a full summation. It might be advisable to seperate criticism related to the "artistic" aspects of the production, and criticism related to its content and subsquent malign influence.

6.Images There are three images. The series logo has a Public domain defense on wikimedia commons. Two other images of the cast are low resolution, with fair use rationales and were released by the copyright owners for promotion.

If any of these points are not clear please ask here or on my talkpage. I hope the above does not seem overly negative, it's intended to be a list of things to work on before promotion. I will give some final points, against all the criteria, later today or tomorrow. Congrulations on all the hard work so far. The article has some good writing and referencing, and generally avoids in-universe perspective, often a problem for a subject like this. The best of luck improving the article.

Update: By the way, the numbers do not refer to the GA criteria. They're just for ease of reading and reference.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the URL at Ref #20 is a deadlink in which I couldn't find any archived version on web.archive.org. –MuZemike 17:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been on hold for ages, 1 month, not enough has been done to make changes IMO, plus there is constant edit conflicts and vandalism. Maybe it should be failed and put foward at a later date. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've had to fail this review since none of the points made by the review, or by other commenting editors, were seriously addressed. Any editor wishing to re-nominate this article for GA short address them. Please ask me if you have any questions, I'd be happy to look at it again once the issues above are examined. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the 1st and 2nd Generation template changed at the bottom?

Why were the First and Second Generational colourised tags at the bottom of the Skins page removed and changed? I recommend we change it back as the current scheme is rather bland and unattractive, if you ask me. Care to explain, perhaps? --Bartallen2 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the colour scheme is as it is now. Maybe the two colours looks extra nice and spiffy to some editors, but what other purpose does it serve. Not really adding anything in terms of helping reader identify anything that can't be achieved with the general standard colour scheme used for this type of box.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it should be changed, due to the future addition of the "third generation"; as it all seems too bland if I do say so myself, thus reverting it to it's past state could be the best way in my opinion.--Bartallen2 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]