Talk:Episode 5675/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 19:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Interesting topic; I'm not a soap watcher so hopefully I can give a useful outsider perspective on whether the article is understandable. Some initial comments:

The use of the tabloid Metro (RSP entry) is not suitable for a GA, unfortunately. Hopefully some of this information can be sourced to more reliable sources, but exclusive interview quotes and critical commentary may have to go.
- It's a common practice in the soaps WikiProject to use Metro as the soaps team for the site has a full editorial team who get all of their information from the soaps themselves – so it's argued that the info is reliable. I've got quite a few soap GAs which use Metro for that justification; what do you think? – DarkGlow • 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've had a think. One article is a routine announcement of something clearly true and a second is just plot summary, so no issues there. I think the interview is just about alright, as I don't see evidence that Metro have ever been caught falsifying interviews, and it is a paid editorial team and fairly uncontroversial information. — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The episode is described as a response to "the murder of George Floyd and the international protests and debates sparked following Floyd's murder". I would phrase that a different way, as my understanding is that the episode does not really relate to Floyd or police brutality directly: ... as a response to the protest movement arising from the murder of George Floyd. I'm surprised Black Lives Matter is not mentioned in the article—do no sources reference it?
- Done the sentence restructure; I'll try to find some BLM coverage as the soap worked with the BLM organisation for the episode. – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"he reveals that Walter sent him away" – I'm not sure I understand what this means.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... he reveals that Walter is the reason for his exit and explained that Walter demanded that he left Martine – Would we lose any information if this was just ... he explains that Walter demanded that he leave Martine? — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks:

"The episode focuses on a birthday party being held for Walter Deveraux" – More concise: "The episode focuses on a birthday party for Walter Deveraux".
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and became the first British soap opera to do so – Not convinced by the grammar here (it implies that "the episode" became "the first British soap to do so"). How about The episode was produced, written and directed by Black creatives—the first of a kind for a British soap opera?
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The episode was first broadcast as a first-look – Repetition of "first" could be averted by substituting "was first broadcast" for "premiered".
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it was announced by the soap that production on the episode – Active voice is briefer: "the soap announced that production on the episode ..."
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... music of Black musicians were used for the score ... – Think it should be "... music ... was ...", or dropping the "music of" would sound fine to my ears.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still the Production and Reception to properly look through, but maybe I'll hold off on that until the Metro issue is resolved. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm formally putting this

on hold, with a week to make substantial progress on the above notes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

In Production, there's way too many uses of "the episode". It becomes implicit after the first mention, so doesn't need including every time e.g. "filming was underway" would still be clear without being "filming for the episode was underway". I'd like half the number of uses or less (replacing with nothing, or with "it", or a different synonym).
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The details of the day included Channel 4's flagship programming airing episodes starring and created by solely Black talent – A bit clunky. I would write it as: "For the day, Channel 4 aired a number of programmes starring and created by Black talent".
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the initiative was ... – This still has the murder of George Floyd link/framing that was improved in the lead.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider it relevant to briefly list the other shows that were part of Black to Front, if you want.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as well as an exclusively Black production team – But The Guardian says, in a correction, The special episode of Hollyoaks will be produced by a more diverse crew, but not an “all-black crew”, as an earlier version said. So it wasn't an "exclusively" Black production team, was it?
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, who portrays Brooke, opined that the clothing they wore in the episode marked their favourite costumes to date – This can surely be made much more concise. Something like "Grant, who portrays Brooke, commented that it was their favourite costuming to date."
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the music featured in the episode had Black musicians, with the cast members featured in the episode being asked to give song suggestions for the soundtrack – Again concision. Just "All of the music featured in the episode had Black musicians, some suggested by cast members".
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cantered around – Should this be "centred"?
- Fixed. – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that their opinions ... – Whose?
- Fixed. – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He felt that since Black people are commonly underrepresented in media – I can't see that either he or the source says this.
Griffin continued by telling Diva that the episode held significance due to being an episode created intentionally to showcase Black talent – Can be improved, as it's a bit wordy and repetitive.
- Removed altogether. – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
untilmately – "ultimately".
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the casting team cast Black cast members – Three "cast"s in seven words. Reword to avoid this.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thompson-Dwyer voiced his excitement to reprise his role as Malique – The character's name is "Prince", isn't it?
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
stated that she felt comfortable on set – Implied by the "family" bit in the next sentence, and better dropped (it's hopefully not unusual to feel comfortable on set). I'd also drop the "joyous" quote as a bit excessive. It doesn't add much information, and we want to summarise the interview, not rewrite it.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inside Soap should be using {{cite magazine}}, not {{cite journal}}.
- Done – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of MOS:QWQ would be that it applies to references to, and so "It's an honour to be part of history!" should use single quotes (' not ").
- Amended wording. – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(In a caption) Blackwood felt that the episode was important represent the multicultural society of the UK has a grammatical error.
- Fixed. – DarkGlow • 01:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my full comments, having considered the whole article now. Notice also a reply to a point above, and the BLM comment still pending. Thanks for your work so far! — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, made a couple of tweaks, and happy with these improvements. Thanks for your work on the article! It's a

pass for GA from me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]