Talk:Russell T Davies/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Initial comments[edit]
I've had a fairly slow read of the article, but I've not really checked any of the references in any depth. On this basis the article has the appearance of being GA-class.
I'm now going to work my way through the article, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until after the last section. This is likely to take at least one day, possibly a couple of days. At this stage I will be mostly commenting on "problems", if any, so if I don't have much to say about a particular section or sub-section that means that that section/subsection is OK. Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Early life and youth career -
- Looks OK.
- Children's television career -
...sorry I stopped to watch a Russell T Davies TV programme.
- Looks OK.
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Adult television career (1994–2004) -
- Queer as Folk -
- This section/subsection includes the throwaway comment: "After his near-death experience in September 1997, Davies ....". My obvious response is what near-death experience? Since this section is about his Adult television career (1994–2004), I might not find the answer here (and I don't), but I would have expected it to be covered in the article. If it is I can't find it.
See my comment below (just under WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - The second paragraph has a vague statement: "For the role of Stuart Jones, Christopher Eccleston was Davies' first choice, but was turned down in favour of his friend Aidan Gillen"; its not clear who turned down Eccleston and whether Gillen was the friend of Eccleston or Davies.- Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - The fourth paragraph is vague/poorly written: The transmission of the première was controversial, in particular because of Nathan's age of 15, and received 136 complaints to Ofcom, in addition to disapproval from his parents and conservative activist Mary Whitehouse.[45] It claims that transmission received 136 complaints to Ofcom - hardly the transmission produced 136 complaints to Ofcom. Nathan appears to be a fictional character so how could his parents express disapproval (and what form did it take), or is this Davies' parents?
- Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - The final paragraph contains the statement: "Of the two series, The Second Coming was greenlit, but dropped by Channel 4 along with Misfits in late 2000.[51] Instead of contesting the cancellation of The Second Coming, he left Channel 4 and vowed to not work with them again". Greenlit appears to be a technical term, its meaning should be explained.
- Mine All Mine -
- Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - The final paragraph poorly written: it states: ".....Production was stifled when the crew was dissatisfied with the pacing of the series finale, an opinion shared by ITV when they scheduled it into four hour-long slots and a ninety-minute slot shortly prior to Christmas 2003.[67] As a result, the production team agreed to edit the final two episodes into a 90-minute finale.". What the article does not state directly, but suggests in a round about way (presumably) it was planed as six on-hour episodes but broadcast as "four hour-long slots and a ninety-minute slot".
- Doctor Who (2005–2010) and beyond -
- WP:Lead -
- Looks OK.
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done all above. His near-death experience is mentioned in the last paragraph before the Queer as Folk heading. Sceptre (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! "...an existential crisis and near-overdose ....". Sorry, I overlooked that. However I'm not all that sure that "near-overdose" and "near-death experience" are identical; and in respect of British-English I don't regard that phrase as being well written. Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the nine-day gap in the review, somewhat unplanned. I'm just working my way through the article again, and I've got to the end of the Adult television career (1994–2004) section. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A generally wide-ranging, well-referenced and well illustrated article on Russell T Davies.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
In the light of improvements carries out during the review, I'm awarding this article GA-status. The article is now quite a strong GA. Congratulations on bringing the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)