Talk:The Red Throne/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Been a week -- Any updates on this one ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments


 * Lead
 * Link to animated series.
 * I tend not to: animation is already a common term, as is series when it relates to television. 23W
 * "from a story devised by several other writers" could you be more specific? Also, are they credited writers?
 * Clarified: "Seo Kim and Somvilay Xayaphone wrote the episode from a synopsis devised by several other writers ..." 23W
 * There's more from the Production section you could summarize in the lead.
 * Expanded. 23W
 * Put ratings info in lead.
 * Done. 23W
 * "Originally aired on 10 February 2014, writers of entertainment- and education-related websites praised the episode" this is actually a sentence structure error, as it implies that the writers aired on that date if you read it carefully. :) Might I suggest "The episode originally aired on 10 February 2014, receiving (INSERT RATINGS FIGURE HERE) and a positive reception from writers of entertainment and education-related websites."
 * lol, didn't catch that. I made it two sentences instead, reads easier. 23W
 * I don't see anything about the crew perceiving its online response as negative later in the article…
 * Mentioned at the start of the second paragraph in "Reception". Clarified that the "online reception" refers to fan reaction. 23W


 * Production
 * I don't think you should repeat the same opening sentence at the beginning of the Production section, as it's a bit repetitive in my opinion.
 * Omitted. 23W
 * "Nada, the main subject of the film, finds a pair sunglasses revealing a breed of aliens disguised as humans in control of society." Remove this sentence--it goes into unnecessary and irrelevant detail about the film, and anybody who wants to find out more can easily click on the hyperlink.
 * Removed. 23W
 * Are the appearances in those other media really homages or more parodies or mockings?
 * Changed to "spoofs". 23W


 * Release and reception
 * Could you be more specific than "over two million"?
 * Changed to approximately two million, would note decimals, but Nielsens data isn't meant to be interpreted that precisely. 23W
 * I can't tell if some of the parts of the Sava review are direct quotes or not. If they are not, I might recommend changing that for the parts "The theme of life following a broken romance benefits from this complexity," and "crafty metaphor for the personal changes an individual from a past relationship experiences, as well as the nostalgia felt over such a relationship," as they could seem a bit non-neutral or synthesis…
 * Tried tinkering with that paragraph. I try to paraphrase as best as I can because reception sections have a tendency to become quote farms in my opinion. I added saying verbs to switch the voice from us to Sava. 23W
 * Instead of using parentheses for the writers' publications, I would just say either "of PUBLICATION" or "writing for PUBLICATION".
 * Done. 23W
 * Why do you bring Sava's review back in the second paragraph?
 * Merged. 23W

Here are some comments. Looking good so far! :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! I hope you had fun reading, and hopefully these changes make the article read a little better. 23W 07:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses! I like the article much more now. Thank you for your civil and quick responses to my concerns. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Final evaluation

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: