Talk:The Price of Gold

The Price of Gold has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 12, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Price of Gold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 03:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. My first thought, before even reading the article, is whether this should be renamed (or at least hatnoted); redirects exist for terms like this one, where someone may be searching for the literal price of gold, to Gold as an investment. Including, actually Price of gold. Just an initial impression before reading the article... Courcelles 03:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The episode scored a ratings share of 3.8 out of 9 among adults aged 18 to 49, and it earned a score of 6.8 out of 10 among overall viewers." This isn't how ratings work. You don't get a 3.8 out of 9, it is a 3.8/9; 3.8 percent of the people in that demographic overall watched, and 9 percent of those in the demographic who were watching television at the time watched the episode. Courcelles 03:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC) (The term "share" also is technical here, and only refers to the 9 and 10 parts of those numbers, not the 3.8 and 6.8. Courcelles)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing. I have added a hatnote about your concern (it needs tweaking, but it's at least something for now). Concerning the ratings, you are absolutely correct. I was trying to convert some of those stats into prose for easier readability, but I see that this also changed their meaning. I have changed them back per your comment. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, I've been feeling under the weather a bit lately, so sorry for the delay.

The plot summary is nearly 800 words -- I don't put much stock in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television's suggestion of 200-500; 200 would be WAY too few here... but I do think the plot summary could be tightened a little.

Done Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In August 2011, Zap2It confirmed that the twenty-five-year-old actress Jessy Schram would be appearing in the new series as Cinderella." I'd likely take out Schram's age, or at least put it as "then 25-year-old". Also, MOS:NUM, as an age, this should be 25, not twenty-five.

Done Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still got a niggle with "The episode scored a ratings share of 3.8/9", the share is only the 9; the 3.8 part of that is the rating, not the share. &You need to directly cite the statistics, not a sentence later.

Done Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"She expressed especial appreciation for the "charismatic and captivating" Robert Carlyle" I'd fix the typo myself, but I'm not sure the modifier special is justified, anyway. Courcelles 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done (removed "especial") Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "curse"? Non-fans of this series are rather clueless.
The curse is explained already in the lead. I'm afraid that adding anything more to the reception section would just end up bloating it. Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sava compared "The Price of Gold" to the previous episode, believing the former to be superior" "The former" here is rather ambiguous. Former in this sentence, or former in airdate... rephrase?

Done Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the awards, was Cinderella's Courtyard only relevant to this episode? The source doesn't say the nomination was for this one ep.

Yes, but this is the only first season episode that actually shows the courtyard. Is this too much OR? Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, i think it is OR here. (though certainly relevant in the season article) Courcelles 03:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the episode been on any DVD releases?

Yes, it has, but I can't find a reliable source that explicitly says this episode was included on it. I could cite Amazon, which says it includes the "complete first season." Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's all I have. Courcelles 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALos, there would seem to be several reeasonable choices for images out there, of the people involved, esp. of the actors mentioned significantly in the critics commentary. (Morrison, etc.) Courcelles 00:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing! I have responded to all of your comments, and have added another picture to the article. Please let me know if there's anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought would be File:Onceuponpriceofgold.jpg. FFD tends to be going against screenshots as infobox contents under NFCC 8 lately. See File:Stolen Earth.jpg for an example of one that got through FFD with difficulty, and note how much stronger the rationale of use is than it is here. Courcelles 03:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed it the image and the awards section. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, we're done here. Courcelles 04:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Price of Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]