Talk:Night of January 16th/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: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: This article has always been a bit of a pain because AWB is always trying to fix false issues with it, I keep seeing this article and it was always a stand out over the last year or so because of that very reason. Which is why I am going to ask: Where is the international coverage of the work? The title was swapped for formatting I think in the EU, but I think it would be a good starting point to add some of that international reception as well. There is another issue. The article is lacking some cites:

• This play gave Rand the idea to write a drama about a trial, but one where the ending would not be fixed. - cite
  • The information in this paragraph is all supported by the source that is cited at the end of the paragraph. I thought one refnote was the more common approach in such cases, rather than repeating it throughout the paragraph. But I'm flexible if you think it should be cited directly after this sentence.
• Rand wrote the play in 1933 under the title Penthouse Legend. - cite
  •  Done Citation added.
• . Rand finally accepted an offer from E.E. Clive to produce the play at the Hollywood Playhouse in Los Angeles. It opened in October 1934 under the title Woman on Trial. - cite
  • Similar situation here to the paragraph discussed above: the sources cited at the end support all four sentences preceding.
• " In the amateur version, after either verdict the judge berates the jurors for their bad judgment and declares that they cannot serve again.[16]" - Which amateur version, be specific, please.
  •  Done To my knowledge the only version sources call the "amateur version" is the one edited by Nathaniel Edward Reeid. I added his name just to be clear.
• The Broadway production received a negative review from Brooks Atkinson in The New York Times, who called it "the usual brew of hokum" - cite.
  •  Done This review and the one below are both described and quoted in the Baker 1987 source that was cited later, but I found the originals and cited them also.
• A review from Theatre Arts magazine was similarly dismissive. - cite
  •  Done as discussed above.
• The movie rights to the play were initially purchased by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) in October 1934. - cite
  • The Heller 2009 cite at the end of the paragraph covers this and the rest of the info in the paragraph, except the names of the writers brought in to complete the screenplay. I moved up the Weiler 1941 cite to cover that.

After doing some fixes and tinkering it should be fine to pass. Placing on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe in all the citation cases the sources already cited cover these items and simply aren't noted next to these sentences. I will verify for each case and update as needed. International coverage is limited to my knowledge, but I will look further. There should at least be reviews for the London production. Should be updated within the next few days. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding inline replies above as I go; will update this sentence when I'm done. @ChrisGualtieri: you should be able to continue now; I've updated the items listed above and added info about a Canadian production and more on the reception of the London production. --RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was too picky before when I looked at this, it meets the GA criteria now, but the GA is a "decent" article, not a perfect article. So I'll pass this, and apologizes for the delay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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.