Talk:The Tempest/GA1

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

Reviewer: Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Characters and Synopsis. Remove the stop in the first image caption. Incomplete sentences in image captions are not stopped. Images and links OK.
 * Fixed as suggested. --Xover (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Date and sources. This passage, "Edward Blount entered [...] registered on that date." probably should be cited, and this phrase, "Since source [...] 18th century," should be cited, too. "Kenneth Muir" can be linked. Italicize "Sea Venture". Critical Survey can be linked. Use The Tempest in the passage, "pervasive influence on Tempest of" for consistency's sake.  Why are "(13 October 1610)" and "(8 November 1610)" placed in parens? Remove the stop in the first image caption. In the second image caption, place the title in italics. Images and links check out.
 * Both missing cites provided; Kenneth Muir linked; Sea Venture italicized; Critical Survey linked; Tempest changed to The Tempest; parenthesis removed; image captions fixed. --Xover (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Text. No problems. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Themes and motifs. No problems. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Criticism. No problems. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Afterlife.
 * Is it "xxth-century" or "xxth century"?
 * Both, actually. :-) It's with a dash when the fragment is posessive (…a 18th-century doohicky…) and without a dash when refering to the century itself (…in the 18th century…). In any case, we weren't consistent on this point so I've fixed the incorrect usages. --Xover (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Restoration" or "restoration"? The word is linked twice within a few sentences.
 * And again it's both ("Restoration" when referring to the period, "restoration" when the verb "to restore" is intended), but, also again, it was used inconsistently. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Court" or "court"?
 * I think the lowercase version is correct—but I wouldn't swear to it—so I've fixed the incorrect instance. I suspect it was a usage carried over from one of the surrounding source. --Xover (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Patent company" should be explained or linked.
 * Linked to Patent company. --Xover (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, the play was considered unsuitable for Restoration audiences," Why?
 * Rewritten, see below. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "King's Company" or "King's Company"?
 * I'm fairly sure the names were proper nouns even then, and they're certainly used thus now, so I've italicized the missing instances. --Xover (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries". Why are the "centuries" spelled out? "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries" is ok.
 * Fixed. I suspect someone (possibly me) was trying to avoid having to figure out the to dash, or not to dash question. --Xover (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "stage-hands" --> "stagehands"?
 * Yup. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "late-19th-century tradition" --> "late 19th century tradition"?
 * ❌ Hmm, no, I don't think so. cf. the dashed/undashed centuries above. 19th-century tradition should be dashed, and forms an atom; which is then connected to late with a dash. Admittedly I find this usage somewhat non-intuitive myself, but as best I can tell that's the correct form. --Xover (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "favorite" --> "favourite"?
 * Yup. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 20th century and beyond
 * Financial Times --> Financial Times?
 * Fixed. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Late 20th-century productions --> Late-20th-century productions?
 * Recast to avoid the issue. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BBC Radio had aired 21 productions of "The Tempest" --> BBC Radio had aired 21 productions of The Tempest?
 * Fixed. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Restoration ...
 * Davenant's Duke's Company --> Davenant's Duke's Company
 * Fixed. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, the play was considered unsuitable for Restoration audiences," Why?
 * Sorry this took so long. Looking at the provided source it seems this bit was in that uncomfortable grey area on the borders of WP:SYN, so I rewrote it to more directly reflect the source. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Music
 * Full Fathom Five and Where The Bee Sucks There Suck I --> "Full Fathom Five" and "Where The Bee Sucks There Suck I" (song titles in q-marks per MoS)
 * Fixed. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Arthur Sullivan: his 1862 incidental music was his first major work, and it brought him to the attention of the public. Ernest Chausson: in 1888 he wrote incidental music for La tempête, a French translation by Maurice Bouchor. This is believed to be the first orchestral work that made use of the celesta."
 * Cited as per the cn tags. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find "semi-operas" in the dictionary.Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikilinked it. I'm not an expert on opera, but it appears to be a well established term of art. --Xover (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do "folk" and "hippie" need to be placed in q-marks? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, and I'm not sure why they were. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Literature and art
 * Per the guidelines, poems of less than epic length or nature are placed in q-marks rather than italics. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Xover (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Screen
 * John Simon can be linked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Linked. --Xover (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Good lead. No problems. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * References - Notes
 * "75. ... citing the Financial Times of 28 July 1988". Financial Times should be italicized.
 * Crud, missed that one. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm ready to complete the review (I trust the nominator to take care of the last two or three things above).

Good article criteria:
 * Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; Pass
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Pass


 * Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; Pass
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; Pass
 * (c) it contains no original research. Pass


 * Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Pass
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).Pass


 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Pass
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Pass
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Pass

Passed to GA. Good work! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Xover (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Good work. AndyJones (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)