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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis 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.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
That still doesn't explain the use of the parathesis. You can either remove them completely, erase the last name, or add quotation marks around "Jackson" but overall the parathesis is not necessary. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing this response, which noted that if you used the tool you'd realize it's been intermittently down, to instead say that you clearly didn't bother to check the sources since they're all already archived. It only makes you look bad at reviewing. Kingsif (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Maybe "The gang all take LSD" would be clearer, but "The gang" functions like "The people" here - it's clear it's referring to the members of the gang as individuals, not as some massive unit that singularly does LSD. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, unless you want to argue for being confused. The paragraphs set in the "alt" 1979 timeline are opened as such, it's assumed those that don't are the present. Additionally, neither María José or Alejo are in the 1979 timeline, again obviously. It would be unnecessary extra words. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ending a paragraph with "Virginia realizes she is pregnant" and then starting a new one with "María José arrives after being alerted by Alejo" is purposely confusing to readers and newcomers who have never watched the show. It makes it sound like they're in the same timeline, and why I'm asking for the addition of "In the present." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentences need rewording:
"...which prevents Salomón from performing when Virginia wants to lose her virginity – she turns to Pato for it."
"Ernesto gives the cabaret to the drag queens. Diego is persuaded by his family to attend gay conversion therapy, to fulfill his dream of being a parent."
"...he had planned the ending of the series back when he was first writing it three years earlier".
This sentence is semi-confusing. "He had planned the ending... when he was first writing it" is just bad wording overall. The sentence should be changed to "he had planned the show's ending back when he initially created the series three years earlier." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He added that he "[does] not regret having chosen [the] character, [because he] needed it as a human being who needed to discover these things, and also because it is a very special message for people."
The addition of multiple words in the quote makes it stop being a quote, so it should be reworded to "He added that he didn't regret choosing the character, as he "needed it as a human being who needed to discover these things, and also because it is a very special message for people." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Breaking character and corpsing are very different, and corpsing is not British slang, it's an industry term for laughing during a take. You don't know what you're on about, do you? Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the actual month is important; if it wasn't there it would be easy to argue it's not specific enough and could be vaguely referring to any period before. Netflix also releases that data per month, so it's also relevant. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's grammatically incorrect because of the sentence structure. We could restructure the sentence if you really like that phrasing, but it would be effectively pointless since there's no issue with the meaning or comprehension. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, would need to change the sentence structure for that to pass grammar. Maybe learn grammar. Also, a trailer is a piece of media as much as TV/film and therefore the "plot" part should be present tense, i.e. it would be "follows the characters..." Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that ends with "of the poster matched graphics with the video" contains a reference that is reused at the end of the paragraph. Remove the first use of the reference, so it isn't reused. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change "Isabel Burr (right) looks similar to a young Verónica Castro (left); the actresses play Virginia de la Mora at different ages." to "Because of their similarities, Verónica Castro (left) and Isabel Burr (right) portrayed the character of Virginia de la Mora at different ages." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current caption sounds like trivia. How is "Isabel Burr (right) looks similar to a young Verónica Castro (left)" a preferable caption? It should be changed to contain an informative structure such as "Isabel Burr (right) and Verónica Castro (left) play the character of Virginia de la Mora at different ages," or something similar that doesn't sound like trivia. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Before I really look at the comments, here's some advice on doing a GAN review: don't make all your comments "change X into Y", and don't demand the nominator "complete" everything you've listed. First, it's arrogant, but more importantly, it isn't useful. It doesn't explain why you're giving the recommendations and it doesn't leave room for discussion - which is just as important in the review. Ideally, "X to Y" comments should only be for grammatical and idiomatic issues; it's much better to ask for a rephrasing to address a certain issue if you find a sentence hard to follow (etc.), without saying what you think that rephrasing should be. That's basically editing the article yourself by proxy, so it's not actually providing a review and can also effectively tip you over the line of being too large a contributor to complete the review without bias towards the content you produced. Where practical, it's also good to refer to the GA criteria or align your comments with these. And the tone you take should be helpful, not demanding.
@Some Dude From North Carolina: You may have gathered this from the responses above, but a lot of your comments are trash, by the way. In the friendliest way (I'm sarcastic, it's not mean), you instruct a lot of things that just don't need to - and in some cases really should not - be done, as well as not really going into depth on parts of the criteria. It's like an incomplete review that mostly focuses on how you want things to be phrased. When phrasing is only one, and relatively minor due to how easy it is to change, concern of a GA. A lot of this article has been split from the GA about the show, so I'm confident it meets the technical criteria, but it would have been good for you to comment on these so it doesn't look like you haven't done that part of the review. Additionally, it's nice to make the reviews positive. When I do them, and I've done a lot, I note when things are good or parts I think stand out (unless I know the nominator likes it quick and dry), so it's not just a list of negatives/need-to-be-improved's. Maybe read other GAN reviews before doing them. Kingsif (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: I just got notified of a fail from the article talk page. It would have been nice if you'd notified me when you responded, a ping or message would have worked. And it is just courtesy to give a ping or message as a last chance before failing. Although I suppose if I had to try walk you through reviewing already you wouldn't have known these things; best for you to learn before trying to do any more reviews for certain, then. Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done both Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
· 
· 
· 
