Talk:The Devil of Christmas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 12:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Production
"the BBC had not requested one" I think this would read smoother with the word yet inserted after not
Sure, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"costumes and props were hired for" - rented? purchased? hired seems like the wrong verb here.
"Rented" fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot
At 497 words, ~~it's a tad too long. I will suggest particular places to trim as I read through, but feel free to start before I get to it if you'd like.~~ it's a bit longer than recommended, but the plot does seem to warrant the extra space.

", in stilted dialogue," - this isn't needed. The detail on the commentary provides a better idea of the scene.
Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"an unpleasant picture of the Krampus" - painting or photograph?
Switched to "painting". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of the pill bottle? Did Kathy poison Julian or throw away his medication?
Threw it away; this is mentioned in passing earlier: "Kathy empties a bottle of tablets". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, what I mean is - why did she empty it, and what is the significance of showing it to Julian when he's dying? It seems connected to his heart attack somehow, but there's no clear connection in the current summary.Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've rejigged this a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" is revealed to be Klaus, who is revealed to be Simon" - repetitive. In the interest of simplification, how would you feel about leaving out the Simon part and just referring to the character as Klaus throughout? I don't think anything would be lost.
Well, it's the revelation that "Klaus" is just a character; he tears off a fake moustache and drops the Austrian accent. I do think this is an important part of the plot (the layer upon layer of character that Shearsmith is playing: Klaus, Simon, fake Krampus, actual Krampus, actor) but I am open to suggestions of how to rephrase this. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "Julian learns that the Krampus and Klaus were both roles being played by Kathy's lover, Simon."? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked these sentences a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~" pours Champagne" - capital not needed~~
That's disputable; I note that there is a long-running dispute on Talk:Champagne about this, as well as plenty of articles a Google away. I followed the current convention on our article on the product. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this dispute. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
"Critics generally responded extremely positively" - that's a lot of adverbs. What about "Critics generally gave The Devil of Christmas extremely positive reviews; ..."
I've gone with "For the most part, critics responded extremely positively to "The Devil of Christmas";". Is that an improvement? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Thanks Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"An unsigned review of "The Bill", the second episode of the third series, in i suggested " - I think this would read better as "In i, an unsigned review of the following episode, "The Bill", suggested"
I've reworked this. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
no concerns

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
One source was previously challenged as unreliable by another editor, but the nominator provided a detailed and satisfactory explanation on the talk page.

C. It contains no original research:
no concerns

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
earwig returned moderate results due to attributed quotes and common phrases such as the episode title and cast list.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The reception section is particularly thorough. Nice work.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
actively improved, no sign of edit warring or vandalism.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
rationales provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
captions are suitable.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Three minor copy edit suggestions remain. Otherwise an easy pass. Nice work here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I think I've got everything. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]