Talk:Kids Can Say No!

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kids Can Say No!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fourth on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Comments

• The infobox file is really high resolution in full form, although that'll be fixed by a bot at a certain point.
• "Jessica Skippon produced and directed Kids Can Say No!, the first British children's film about sexual abuse." The wording makes it sound like these two are connected somehow. Also, it's a bit weird for the director of the movie to be first mentioned this far down, so I might put that material as well as the writer in the first sentence somewhere.
• I would say "was primarily purchased"
• I would also put something in the lead about how some experts in the field of child sexual abuse did not support the film.
• Using "resurfaced" both here and later in the article is odd if there's nothing about it fading into obscurity earlier--if there's a source that says this, it would be great to add it, but if there's not, no big deal, really.
• I don't think it's important to have that one piece of specific commentary in the lead (the one at the very end).
• Per WP:EASTER, change the link to admissible evidence as "but it was not considered to be admissible evidence."
• The first sentence of production is pretty much a repeat of the opening sentence of the lead.
• I don't think I've ever said this before, but there are too many ref-named refs in some of these sentences. It kind of disrupts the flow. For example, in the second sentence of Production, you can just cite to the two refs you use at the end of the sentence.
• Is The Sun really a good source to use?
• "1982 Canadian tour" what kind of tour?
• Is there any more about Alsop's song? If not, why is it in the lead?
• The only place in "Release" where the flow gets disrupted is "October 1985[1] on VHS[2]".
• Thinking about structuring for the article, I would put "sequel" as a subsection of "Release". I was thinking about putting "Harris's Trial" somewhere, but that doesn't work.
• Ditto for the admissible evidence link down here as well
• I think the file in the reception section is neither relevant nor helpful.
• In Reception, could you put a critical consensus sentence up top detailing the main opinions of the film, both at the time of its release and in 2014?
• I would put the refs in two columns if I were you.
• Any external links? Official site, IMDb, anything?
• The ref from The Independent is dead. Obviously, I haven't seen the ref, but is it possible that there's more usable stuff there?

@Neelix: So those are my comments, and then I can pass. This is a very interesting subject and you've done some good work here. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Johanna! I have implemented most of your suggested changes. Do you know of a way of easily reducing the resolution of the lead image? I don't know the name of the bot you refer to. I haven't added the word "primarily" because the source doesn't justify this addition. I think it important to retain the last sentence of the lead; this is the only post-trial reception statement in the lead and it is the most comprehensive one available to us. I changed the wording of the "admissible evidence" link in such a way that I do not believe it to violate WP:EASTER; please let me know if you object to the current wording. The issue you bring up with references punctuating sentences is one that has been brought up in many articles and there is simply no completely satisfactory solution. I strongly object to grouping references at the end of sentences because it prevents readers from understanding which parts of a sentence are sourced by which references. An alternate solution is citation bundling, which I have implemented in some other articles, although that solution results in very complicated reference sections, making it difficult to get an overall picture of the sources used. My preference would be to leave the citations as they are, although I could bundle them if you have a strong preference for doing so. You questioned whether the Sun source is a good one to use rather than saying that it wasn't a good one to use, so I assume that you were asking me to justify the choice rather than remove the source; considering that the information in this source seems entirely consistent with the other sources, simply providing a few additional details, I think it's fine to keep in this article. Unfortunately, the Guardian source doesn't specify what kind of tour Harris was on in 1982 beyond the location. Please let me know if you have any additional recommendations regarding the article or if I have not sufficiently addressed any of the concerns you have already raised! I appreciate you taking the time to do a thorough review. Neelix (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot I'm referring to is User:Theo's Little Bot, which comes through eventually. It's not a big deal though because it will happen eventually anyway. Everything else looks good! I can pass now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 01:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: