Talk:Madhouse on Castle Street/GA1

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

Reviewer: Frickative  02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a well-written, engaging article, with just a few issues which need to be addressed before it can be listed as a Good Article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * A few minor prose issues:
 * "Madhouse on Castle Street was a British television play" - I think this should be in the present tense, as even though it's unlikely to air again, it doesn't cease to be a British television play, if you see what I mean?
 * OK, changed to is


 * "somewhere in England" - is there any particular reason this is in quotes, and doesn't just read "The play is set in a boarding house in England" or "The play is set in an English boarding house"?
 * since the 1950s - can we be specific and just say "since 1950"?
 * Changed to "The play is set in an English boarding house"


 * Dylan's complete lack of any acting training or experience - just personal opinion on this one, but I think the "any" is superfluous.
 * "any" removed


 * The play was planned to be recorded in one session on 30 December 1962, but it over-ran and the Technical Operating Manager told cast and crew to go home, even though they were willing to complete the filming, and London was in the grip of a major blizzard. - Bit of a run-on sentence here. It's not entirely clear what the blizzard in London has to do with the rest of the information being conveyed.
 * Re worded and split into two sentences, I get the impression from the sources that the blizzard was significant as it led to a delay in arranging a new session.


 * Apart from "Blowin' in the Wind" - I know this song has already been mentioned in the "Producion" section, but ideally a reader who reads the "Songs" section alone should be able to follow the prose coherently, so I'd recommend rewording the opening here as something akin to '"Blowin' in the Wind' was used in the opening and closing credits, replacing a song written by Evan Jones, "Cut Me Down, My Love". Dylan also performed..." Feel free to adapt however you think reads best.
 * Re worded as per suggestion


 * In the "Reception" section, you close quotes and open new ones without any text bridging the two. I'd recommend inserting a simple: The reviewer wrote: "It is a strange..." or similar.
 * Done


 * While from a retrospective viewpoint it may seem surprising that such an early performance of Dylan's was destroyed - surprising to who? It verges on editorializing, makes assumptions about the reader, and I think you could stand to remove this portion of the sentence entirely.
 * Done


 * presumably deeming it to be of little overseas sales value - Don't make presumptions. Is this mentioned in the Observer article reference? That needs to be made explicit if so. As it is, I'm not seeing it in the article, but please do correct me if I'm overlooking it.
 * done


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Reference 8, attributed to The Times is a deadlink. Can you update the link if the article has moved, or find a suitable replacement/archived copy if it's been taken down permanently? As the only reception present, this is quite important. I appreciate that given that the play aired just once in 1963, an abundance of critical commentary will be hard to come by, but for broadness of coverage it should ideally have at least some.
 * Updated link
 * There are two references to the Internet Movie Database which isn't a reliable source, but this isn't necessarily a problem. The first is used in the "Plot" section, where I would say you don't actually need a reference, as the play itself is the source. The second is supporting the works of Evan Jones, and I think could legitimately go two ways. In the first instance, are his other works necessarily relevant to this article? If not, you could remove that part of the sentence entirely. If you think it's worth keeping in, I'd recommend simply subbing the IMDb ref with the British Film Institute instead.
 * Done, but I note that IMDb is considered reliable for credits.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Reception is on the short side, but per my comments above, I appreciate this may be because no other reception exists. I've done my own search for sources and am satisfied that the article adequately encompasses what's available. As long as the reference issue can be addressed, I've no qualms with the article's broadness. There is also some critical commentary in the Observer article cited which it may be beneficial to incorporate into this section, as long as you're careful in your wording to indicate that it comes from second hand reporting.
 * Done


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The fair use rationale for the infobox image gives its purpose as simply illustrating the article. This could stand to be strengthened per WP:NFC. Does the image's presence significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? Would its omission be detrimental to that understanding? If so, say so and explain why.
 * Done, I hope to your satisfaction
 * The fair use rationale for the infobox image gives its purpose as simply illustrating the article. This could stand to be strengthened per WP:NFC. Does the image's presence significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? Would its omission be detrimental to that understanding? If so, say so and explain why.
 * Done, I hope to your satisfaction


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll place the article on hold for now, and if these issues can be addressed, then I'm happy to list it as a Good Article. Frickative  02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that all of those points have been addressed, thank you for your review. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt work, and well done on an interesting article. I'll go ahead and list it as a GA now. Frickative  14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)