Talk:Elvis Harte

Elvis Harte 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: September 8, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Television: British Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Passed. Fritzmann (message me) 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 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.

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

Nominator: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 00:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Fritzmann (message me) 00:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: I'm sorry if I'm rushing you, but when will this review be started? FishLoveHam (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Six of the ten sentences in the lead begin with "Elvis" or "Elvis's". I recommend re-writing some of these to improve the flow and readability of the introduction.
- Done changed several to "he" or "the character". FishLoveHam (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"captain of the special forces" or "captain in the special forces"? Additionally, which special forces?
- Done
There is a lot of variance in tense in the lead and throughout the article. "Has been" and "is" and "was" are all present in the lead; I suggest standardizing the tense where possible.
- Done Made past-tense where possible, with the exception of the Storylines section. I'm pretty sure the key offender was development para 3 lol. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Elvis was described" by whom?
- No one in particular. Various publications billed him that way and it is just to provide a general overview of his characterisation. FishLoveHam (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As Georgie has had visions of him" does this mean like dream visions? Or that she actually saw him?
- Done explained a bit more. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend splitting the sentence that begins "Elvis and his unit..."
- Done FishLoveHam (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he shoots Elvis, he is shot dead by the special forces" the pronouns are somewhat confusing here.
- Done Removed as it isn't a hugely important plot point in the show. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "2-section" is doesn't seem to be explained; is it just Elvis's team or unit?
- Done 2-Section is Georgie's team. I've introduced it in the article. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He noted a difference being that the type of combat was different" is somewhat clunky
- Done FishLoveHam (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Spotchecks of refs 9, 11, 14, and 16 check out.
I don't have any POV or neutrality concerns; attribution is done very well throughout the article for quotes from the actor and perspectives from critics.
Article is stable, fair use rationale for the image looks good, Earwig returns 23% but it's all properly quotes

I looked at the review for Georgie Lane and it looks like you've taken the feedback from there and applied it very well to this article. Once a few prose issues are resolved I am happy to promote! Fritzmann (message me) 18:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: I've addressed all your concerns, thanks so much for the review.

FishLoveHam (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, promoting now. Thanks for your patience! Fritzmann (message me) 20:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.