Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Magic (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic (play)

5x expanded by ThaesOfereode (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC).

  • Review
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The first hook seems most attractive and has been checked out thoroughly. It's the one that works best with the picture as I like the way that it identifies all the people. I haven't been able to run Earwig yet and want to do so as there's a lot of quotations and plot to consider. There are also some copy-editing niggles such as some Americanisms and the crooked lead image but I may take care of those myself pending the final review.
(<later>I've made a copy-editing pass and run Earwig and it's reasonably good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Andrew. I agree that the first hook is far and away the best one, with or without the image (though obviously much better with it). I would appreciate any and all copy-editing edits from you, especially for the Americanisms; I tried my best to conform to British English standards, but my eye for it is by no means perfect. Hopefully Earwig will be up and running shortly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was the centre/center spelling that caught my eye. I'm making a copy-editing pass through the article and addressing some pleonasm and other issues too. Feel free to push back if you disagree. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
All excellent suggestions/fixes; I have a tendency for unnecessary periphrasis. I pushed back on minor quibbles – mostly with the plot and character descriptions, having spent quite some time reading and re-reading the play – but I believe all the changes should still be well in line with British standards. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Earwig score was 3% which is negligible. The extensive quotes and lengthy synopsis are debatable but I don't consider these to be show-stoppers and so we can move forward. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! ThaesOfereode (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)