User talk:Paul730/Sandbox

Review

*I'd break the opening sentence up. The last part, "portrayed by.." just seems really tacked on. It'll read better separated and turned into a complete sentence.

- I've changed it so it leads into the next sentence.

*"major role" -- what qualifies as a "major" role?

- Well... she is kind of the main storyline of that season, but I see your point. I've changed it to "and was the focus of that season's overarching plot".

*Are you classifying the games as "appearances"? If so, then it wouldn't be right to put the games somewhere else. If not, then the lead sentence needs to be reworded.

- Removed the games from the lead. She was one game, it's not important enough for the lead.

*Dushku turned the show down? Do you mean she turned down the opportunity of taking up the role again? The way it's written it sounds like she had creative control to say "there will be no show".

- Well, the show kind of died when she turned them down. No Eliza = No Faith. I'll the check the source to see exactly what happened and reword it. I've clarified that she declined the offer and the show just didn't appear.

*"Vampire Slayer" should not be capitalized. If you say "Slayer", then you would because it's a title instead of simply the job being done.

- I was wondering that actually... vampire Slayer looks kind of wrong. I've changed it to just "Slayer".

*"is a Slayer that comes from..." - She isn't the only Slayer, so saying "The" wouldn't be accurate, especially since she isn't the only one that makes wrong decisions.

- Done.
Given the size of your sandbox, I'd tone down the plot information on the character in the lead, and bring in more OOU info to better summarize the article.
- I'll work on that. The lead won't be complete till I've finished the article, it was only temporary.

*"Status: Alive" -- She's fictional, she'll always be alive, and given the Slayers penchant for returning from the grave, even "death" is questionable in that series. It gives rise to recentism, because if she dies then you have to change it to "Dead", but if she's resurrected you have to change it back to "Alive". It's be a ridiculous cycle if she starts dying and resurrecting continually.

- Yes, that's annoyed me for a while now. I'll remove it from the template. Just deleted it, I anticipate bitching from angry Buffy fans though.

*"Faith makes appearances in various comic books and novels." -- Might be good to clarify that the comics and novels are "Buffy" and not just any 'ol comic and novel out there.

- Done.
Watch your spelling. I see British English intermingled with American English spellings. First one I came across was "centre".
- I see you fixed a bunch of spelling mistakes... :/ Didn't know my spelling was that bad. Thanks anyway.

*"which tells the story of Faith's back-story in" -- Maybe "which elaborates on Faith's back-story". Too many "story"s.

- Done. I usually catch repetition like that.

*"Author Levy" - Should be full name in the first usage.

- Done. In my defence, he is mentioned above.

*"Author Levy describes writing the book, claiming "I wanted to explore the choices she made and the choices that were taken away from her, and how they affected her mental state and her development from Potential to Chosen before she arrived." -- "describes writing the book, claiming..." ?? That doesn't make sense. Two verbs that technically mean the same thing.

- Removed "claiming".

*"Expanded Universe material such as this is not usually considered canonical unless otherwise stated." -- Stated by whom? Need a source for that type of statement.

- Yep, that's been on my to-do list all day. Must have slipped my mind. I have a couple interviews with Joss that I'll cite. Done.

*"Faith features in the ongoing comic book" -- "Faith is featured in.."

- Done.
Is "Gigi" the nickname of the rogue slayer?
- Yes, Faith calls her it herself. Why, is not clear enough?
punctuation in quotations. Some commas are placed inside quotes that are incomplete sentences.
- Yeah, I'm crap at punctuation, I just make it up as I go along. I'll try and go through them.
I think it would be better to move all strictly characterization information out of the other sections and into a sole "Characterization" section. The first sentence in "Development" has nothing to do with development. It's Eliza's take on who the character is. The entire first paragraph of that section is really describing who her character really is, and not describing how they "developed" her character.
- Actually, the more I read (sorry, I'm reading and typing at the same time) the more the entire "development" section is really just a normal "Characterization" section you'd find standing alone in the article. I see where there are instances of text describing how her character "evolved" by season seven, but for the most part, it's general characterizing as a whole.
  - Yeah, the section headings have been bothering me, they're the main reason I asked you to review it. Should I just retitle the development section "Characterization"? What should I do with it, and what does this mean for the rest of the info I have (which is critical analysis, that sort of thing). Anyway, thanks for going to the effort of reading it through. Paul 730 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your spelling wasn't bad, just the spelling of words with their European spellings. I think I corrected them all though. As for the sections. I'd take "Development" and make it "Characterization", and then make that its own section. I'd make "Concept and creation" its own section. I'd put "Critical analysis" in with "Characterization" and I think there were a couple of statements in "Concept and creation" that were more "characterization" than what Whedon was intending by creating the character (for now I'd focus on separating the sections though). I'd look for some casting information on Dushku for the "C & c" section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]