Talk:The House of Flowers (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 10:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a very detailed and well referenced article! It may take me some time to work through it all but hopefully I can get a full review here shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is a great article. I was not aware of this series and have enjoyed learning so much about it from the page here. I am especially impressed with the in-depth analysis and reception discussions, well done. Here are some small improvements that I would like to see made before promoting it to GA status:

I think the lead should mention Netflix at some point and also that the third season is the last season.
The plot summaries are a little long, per MOS:TVPLOT they shouldn't be more than 500 words for each season.
Were Burr, Jattin, and Correa credited as guest stars in season 2? If they were not credited but appeared in a photograph then I think the Guest formatting should be removed with the [b] note left the same as the [a] note for Castro.
Using the copyvio tool there are a couple sources that are coming up with the "Violation Possible" result. Can you take a look at rewording some of this information in the article so the worst results returned by the tool are "Violation Unlikely"?
Your thorough referencing is impressive, but I see that only one of your online sources is archived. I strongly recommend archiving the other online sources to ensure that the reference articles are available for readers to check in the future.

Let me know once you have worked through these points or if you have any questions or concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do most of those - I have gone over the copyvio tool a lot, and it seems that it pulls up the scary "Violation Possible" because of the phrase 'La casa de las flores' appearing in the titles of many of the sources bumping up the percentage. Beyond removing these, I don't see how to get it down. Kingsif (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Adamstom.97: I've now done everything bar archive refs, which will be a tedious act for tomorrow.~~ I'm glad you like the article, there's a good amount of coverage on it for a variety of reasons (breakout Mexican show, genre-bending, famous people working together, the nature of Latin American press rinsing for details) so it's been fun to work on, too! Kingsif (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstom.97: Archive links have now been added to all sources except ones that already had a universal identifier (ISBN, doi, etc.), including archived pdfs for literature where appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with all those changes, especially the archiving which I appreciate will have been tedious but I think will make a real difference. I have had another look at the copyvio tool and I am happy with your assessment of those issues. I am now ready to pass this review. Congratulations, and keep up the great work! - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.