Talk:San Junipero/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Taking this one on. Good episode. —Ed!(talk) 01:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- "The episode has a substantially more hopeful tone than other Black Mirror stories and is the show's most acclaimed episode." -- I'd say this is an exception to WP:LEAD in that the "most acclaimed episode" needs a cite. Maybe it would be fine to say it's the only episode to win the kinds of awards it did, but to call it most acclaimed seems a bit subjective.
- Well yes, the pertinent information this is trying to summarise are the facts that it has won more awards than any other episodes (both quantity and significance of awards). I've replaced this with "garnered popularity among both fans and critics, along with many awards". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- "The episode is set in 1987 in a beach resort town named San Junipero, where Yorkie (Mackenzie Davis), a shy woman visiting the town, meets and falls in love with the more outgoing Kelly (Gugu Mbatha-Raw). The town is revealed to be a simulated reality in" -- The 1987 setting was presented as a plot twist in the episode, so maybe say it was set in a simulated reality that appears to be 1987. As worded now, it sounds like the real world presented in the episode is 1987 which isn't the case.
- Moved this bit to "The town is revealed to be a simulated reality of 1987..." — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Re: the quote on "a conscious attempt [...] to blow up what the show was". -- good here maybe to talk about what he means. Maybe a line to say the show's episodes are typically much darker and feature sad, sometimes almost horror-like endings.
- Replaced with a similar quote and expanded – this bit now reads: "authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series". Though the show previously focused on technology causing disaster, this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible."
- Any details about their reaction to the award? Or larger thoughts about what the award meant for the show overall?
- Other than the odd heroin joke, Brooker rarely talks about the award. I'm not sure it meant much for Black Mirror but some sources have noted what it means for queer representation in media so I've added a bit about that (in Analysis, as this is not intrinsically linked to the Emmys). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- "The episode has a substantially more hopeful tone than other Black Mirror stories and is the show's most acclaimed episode." -- I'd say this is an exception to WP:LEAD in that the "most acclaimed episode" needs a cite. Maybe it would be fine to say it's the only episode to win the kinds of awards it did, but to call it most acclaimed seems a bit subjective.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass Plenty of refs here.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass No problems there.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is stable:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass Images show appropriate copyrights.
- Other:
- Dup links, dab links show no problems.
- I see one dead link that needs to be fixed.
- Copyvio tool shows yellow, but I think it's just catching the use of quotes in the article, which are appropriately cited.
On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 02:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I've quickly fixed the dead link (and the outdated URLs) and I will work on the other issues on Sunday. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've responded to your other comments now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Article looks good now, passing GA. —Ed!(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've responded to your other comments now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.