Talk:Neighbours/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJMitchell    You rang?   23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh this is going to be fun! I suggest you find a GA/FA on a similar topic and copy it s format

General points
- HJMitchell   You rang?   19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * References- there are 38 of them at the time of writing- for an article of this size and importance, I'd expect that to be much higher ✅ The article now has double the amount of refs JG07
 * Prose- a lot of short, abrupt sentences that will need copyediting ✅ I think we've got them sorted. JG07
 * MOS- for dates, use the format "1985-present" rather than "1985-"✅
 * That contents table is way too long ✅
 * Some of the content may be better off split into separate articles (specifics below) ✅

The nitty gritty

 * lead
 * firstly, it needs to be longer- it should accurately and concisely summarise the content of the article rather than act as an intor (see WP:LEAD). ✅ by June Gloom
 * should mention the series is "ongoing" ✅
 * references in the lead always raise an eyebrow- the lead should summarise the article so the facts should be referenced in the main body. ✅ moved ref to main section.


 * history and popularity
 * I'd suggest splitting these up into 3 sections- history (concise history of the series), broadcasting and production (where and how), and ratings (viewing figures etc) ✅
 * for a section called "history", it doesn't give any! It needs to give an overview of the series- when did it start, whose idea was it, brief mention of where it's broadcast etc. ✅
 * lack of refs for when and where it's broadcast and for how long ✅
 * what does "other regions" mean- remember that people from all over the world read the English Wikipedia ✅
 * some significant facts are slipped in like trivia ✅
 * undue weight for 2008-9. Remember that's only one year in 25 (or is it 2 years? In which case call it "2008-2010") ✅, merged to create one section for storylines for 2000s.


 * 'broadcast schedule
 * retitle the section to sound less like a TV guide ✅
 * there's not a single ref for the broadcasting in Oz ✅
 * prose needs a little work ✅ JG07


 * storylines
 * if you're going to give it a section, it needs a little prose ✅


 * cast (take a deep breath before you read this)
 * references (or lack thereof)
 * you might be able to get way with a separate article (or dumping the info in an exisitng one) ✅ JG07
 * consolidate it to a list of the the most notable actors and characters the series has seen (base it of The Bill ✅ JG07
 * cast members and characters should not be in plain text- they should have a blue or red link since they're probably notable ✅ JG07


 * Locations
 * I'd make this info part of the suggested "broadcast/production" section mentioned above (I've left this as a seperate section like Eastenders has, I can change and merge it though if needed) JG07
 * again, major lack of references ✅ JG07
 * put the info in prose rather than a table ✅ JG07


 * video game
 * is there any more information that can be added to this? ✅ Added creator's name and another ref JG07


 * awards
 * I'm sure it's won something other than Logies??? ✅ JG07

There are other issues, but those are the most important. I also have a few points on the refs, but that's probably a little complicated for a GA review (perhaps someone will contact me on my talk page and I'll explain) and probably a FA problem rather than a GA one. HJMitchell   You rang?   19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, There's more!
First off, I'm impressed with the progress and the speed of the progress. It's really starting to take shape. I think GA by Christmas might be a little optimistic, but it certainly should be there by new year as long as this fine work continues. A few points to keep you busy, but nothing as tough as the first lot:
 * 1) The lead still needs a little work. It should summarise the contents of the article (as per everyone's favourite part of the MoS! Or not!) thus, anything you mention in the lead should also be mentioned in the main body (the awards come to mind in particular, though that may be my fault). ✅
 * 2) That contents table is still way too long, try merging some of the subsections together, which also makes for better prose ✅
 * 3) History and popularity is still a worry- there isn't actually any substantial historical information in it and the rest is half ratings and half broadcasting, which should go in their relevant sections with the section left with nothing but history.  I'd say that this was now done --5 albert square (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * 4) Further to 2, there's a lot of misplaced information which makes it look messy- have clearly defined sections (history, broadcasting, ratings etc) and keep all info related to them in there and all info not related to them in its respective section ✅ Hopefully everything is in the right place now JG07
 * 5) In Setting, "making it a popular tourist haunt" is not an appropriate term for an encyclopaedia ✅
 * 6) same section, there are a lot of short sentences etc that need copyediting out- for example Neighbours interior scenes are filmed at studios in Nunawading in Forest Hill, which is suburb in Melbourne, Australia. [27] [28] which is not the best construed sentence and is in an entire paragraph of its own ✅ changed and moved JG07
 * 7) "Filming in the UK" does not need its own subsection- incorporate it into the rest of the section and remove the plot stuff- this is about filming, not the plot. Also, Yorkshire is a very big area! Can we be a little more specific? ✅ Though I can't find anything to say which part of Yorkshire Neighbours visited. JG07
 * 8) It was filmed in Kenya and the US, so why is the heading "filming in the UK"? Also, you're probably giving undue weight to the UK episodes ✅ Have moved the Kenya and US filming sentence. JG07
 * 9) "Broadcasting" looks good- it could do with a few refs and paragraph merges etc, but it's the right size and shape, good work. ✅
 * 10) "International broadcasts" also looks good, though could perhaps be a little neater? "Former broadcasts" should be incorporated into that. Oh, and America is a continent- I assume you mean The United States? ✅
 * 11) "Storylines" needs a prose summary of the separate article, like I did for the "Awards" ✅
 * 12) Why is the intro to "Characters" indented? ✅
 * Far, far, far too many subheadings in the "theme tune" and "Titles" ✅
 * 1) Lack of refs in the titles- I also have some concern over the fair use of the screenshots, but I'm going to take further advice from an expert on that ✅
 * 2) I'm impressed with the number of refs- it's about doubled since I started the review, which is encouraging. Watch your "work" and "publisher" fields in the cite temps though (not really a GA issue).

That's not a comprehensive list, but those are your biggest hurdles at the minute. As ever, any questions- direct them to my talk page and I'll do what I can! HJMitchell   You rang?   19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost there
I can't guarantee that's everything, but it could be a day or 2 before I get chance to review it properly again. HJMitchell   You rang?   02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * History ✅
 * Setting: middle paragraph is unreferenced ✅ Now got 2 references
 * Broadcasting ✅ I'm happy enough with this
 * Popularity and viewership: unless there is a source for mediocre, it should be refactored. I'm pretty happy with the rest of it. ✅ There was a ref but it didn't mention mediocre. Re-worded around ref.
 * Storylines: could do with a little expansion (just to summarise the main article), needs a ref or 2 ✅
 * Characters: "More recently one time Spice Girls singer Emma Bunton, Lily Allen, and Matt Lucas and David Walliams have appeared" needs a copyedit- I don't recall Walliams being a Spice Girl! ✅ hastily re-worded!
 * Theme tune: it's short, but I'm inclined to let it go
 * Titles: massive improvement! Brilliant work! Could still do with a little pruning but I'm happy overall ✅
 * Video game: ✅ all good
 * DVD Releases ✅ all in order
 * Awards and nominations: ✅ but I'd suggest flipping this with the section above to keep the table at the bottom (it looks tidier) ✅

Titles

 * "over a scene of Danny cycling around the street": who's Danny? Is that info essential?
 * "These titles marked the first episode of the 1986 season, and the first on Channel Ten. It simply featured...": stick with they or it, don't chop and change
 * "From episode 1221, a short sequence continued from 1990 through until 1992. From this point on...": read that back, see if it makes sense!
 * "Joe, Kerry, Sky, Beverly, Des, Jamie, Melanie, Caroline, Sharon, Matt and Harold were removed while Beth, Lucy, Lou, Dorothy, Phoebe, Toby, Andrew, Marco, Rick, Pam, Doug, Cameron, Brad and Gaby were added": bordering on fancruft, besides, reading it, I don't know who Gaby or Cameron are!

The section needs a substantial copyedit, trimming down, some of the less important info coming out. Sorry to disappoint, but there's work to be done yet! Sorry! HJMitchell   You rang?   01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC) ✅ I think we can say it's been trimmed down. :) JG07