Talk:Benefits Street/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 12:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed everything in this article last night, offline, except for the references. When I find a card reader, I'll upload the review. Quite impressed with the quality of the article, given how new the topic and article both are. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great. Looking forward to reading your thoughts. I should mention there were one or two issues with a sockpuppet early on in this article's development. Mainly because he felt it was too left-wing for his liking, he made changes that introduced a small paraphrasing and copyvio problem, but I've weeded it out now. The user, who expressed similar views on a number of politics-related articles has been absent since 23 January. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. It all seems quite balanced, currently, so good job at that. --  Zanimum (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost even amounts of random remarks that I thought I'd throw out into the world, as comments for you to consider about the actual article.
 * Thanks for the review so far. I'll do some of the smaller stuff now, but will have to break off till tomorrow as it's approaching midnight in the UK. The main talk page discussion concerns the stuff I mentioned earlier, but I've added various comments on things as I've been expanding the article. Thanks again for taking this on. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
 * I'm wondering if you should be linking to this page, instead? I'd welcome a link to Love Productions' home page, down in the External links.
 * Done.

Lead
 * Perhaps "Channel 4 and media regulator Ofcom"? While it's explained later on what Ofcom is, it's not immediately clear to foreign readers like myself, as the Federal Communications Commission and Canadian Radio and Television Commission are.
 * Done.


 * References should be used sparingly in a lead, usually not at all. Are all of these points discussed later in the article, using the same references? If so, you don't need to include them here. There are very sparing cases where references should appear in the lead.
 * Done.

Background
 * Is 9.00pm really the correct British format for 9:00 pm?
 * Done. Not entirely sure about this, so I've gone with 9:00 pm.


 * Perhaps make it clearer that the debate programme was commissioned during the run of the series? That helps re-enforce the series' impact, that producers quickly responded to public interest with more content.
 * Done.

I love that people were making unlicensed merch for a documentary series.
 * Must admit I was quite surprised when I read this, but apparently they were for sale on ebay.

James Turner Street
 * Is Alison Wheatley historian of King Edward's School? If not, I'd say education historian might do better.
 * I got the impression she is, but education historian sounds better.


 * What's a "reader in public history"? Is it a non-teaching research position?
 * Generally it is. I've added a link to reader (academic rank), so let me know if this is ok.

Synopsis
 * I find that amazing, that people would shoplift when cameras are following them. Wow.
 * As the saying goes, you couldn't make it up.

Episode list
 * Perhaps hyphenate 30-minute, hour-long?
 * Done.

Political and media response
 * I was confused why Clegg would contradict Cameron, until I continued on, and saw they're from different political parties. Would it be possible to somehow incorporate the party names into the prose, so in 30 years time, people can easily clue into the fact that it was two parties governing together?
 * Done. Although the references here don't always mention the party affiliations of senior ministers, such as Cameron and Clegg who are often referred to by office, I guess this is probably ok. The information is well documented elsewhere.

Benefits Britain: The Debate
 * I was going to take issue with "Jeremy Kyle-style", not the reference to him, but that it sounded like you were coining a phrase. Turns out 39,000 Google references to that term in quotes proves this is practically common nomenclature!
 * He gets referenced a lot in popular culture, although I must confess "Jeremy-Kyle style" is a phrase I hadn't encountered before. After watching the debate, and footage of Kyle on YouTube, I thought it summed up the programme quite well.

The Big Benefits Row: Live
 * The reality star was questioning the career path of the model? Amusing

Public reception
 * Starting a sentence with a numeral (60,000) should be avoided.
 * Done.

Critical reception
 * Is Emma Johnson of the earlier mentioned Oasis school, or of a public school (ie government school, I forget what you call them in the UK)?
 * Done. She's the head teacher of Oasis. (not sure if it's a State school or one of Cameron's new Free schools)

Viewership
 * You list 9pm differently in this section. What is standard British practice?
 * Done.

Passing External links, categories.

Still left are References and images. I also haven't taken a look at the talk page, to see if there are any active discussions. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

References pass, images pass. (I had as having a legit fair use claim.)  --  Zanimum (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No issues re: talk. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully everything sorted out now. Let me know if there's anything else, and I'll take another look. Thanks again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, pass! --  Zanimum (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)