Talk:Gisele Yashar
 | Gisele Yashar 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 20, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copy edit
edit@Aoba47: I have started copy editing, although it is a high quality article with not a lot that needs doing to it. I did rewrite "For the mission, Yashar draws from her background as a Mossad agent through using her experience with interrogation, weapons, and retrieval." I did as a single edit, so it can be reverted if you wish.
A query: "and are rarely given focus on their own" seems a little clunky to me; I read it as "of their own" the first time through and thought that it needed an 'a'. But as it is a summary of a quote I can't really change it, lest I lose the meaning. It works fine as it is, but would something like "and are rarely brought into focus as individuals" read a little more smoothly?
Another. The last paragraph: it seems a little odd to open the critics appraisals of her performance with one written 4 years after the character was killed off. I feel that this sentence would be best moved to the end to give a critical retrospective to end the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I will address your concerns momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- For the third comment, if you look at the citations, you will notice that a majority of the critical feedback written about the character and the actress' performance due to the surge of interest in Gadot following her role as Wonder Woman. Hope that makes sense. I have addressed and revised the second comment. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- That makes perfect sense, as is flagged up in the same way in the article. I will have a last go through tomorrow with fresh eyes and then I am done. As I said at the start, there hasn't really been much for a copy editor to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Infobox image and other image
editI have reverted these edits as they violate the non-free content criteria and are not an improvement to the article. I've restored the previous infobox image as a better depiction. A second non-free video clip is not justified as redundant to the infobox image as being an image of the character (WP:NFCC#3). -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)