Talk:A Ghost Story for Christmas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 23:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Bob, on the face of it I can find nothing to criticise here — the prose is fine, the MoS is adhered to (the lead section provides a good overview), referencing seems reliable, and there are no problems with the stable state of the article or its one image. I have amended a few minor things. To weigh into the debate about whether we are dealing with an article or a list... I agree with the argument of one FAC reviewer that, as a single page, it remains an article. In the case that it is accepted to be an article, I question whether the current page is perhaps wanting in its "broad coverage" of the "main aspects" of the subject, insofar as there is no reception information about the instalments of A Ghost Story for Christmas. Internet sources for this series as a whole seem somewhat sparse, although a glance at Google Books did turn up this, which appears to dedicate a whole chapter to A Ghost Story for Christmas and comments on each episode. I don't know if this is of interest and/or help to you. In the absence of critical content, the question of NPOV seems redundant, so again I am unsure as to what to conclude. It's just that, with a mind to WP:MOSTV, it's hard to believe that nothing could be added to expand the article at least a bit. SuperMarioMan 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mmm, yes, I wondered whether as an article, the "broad" thing would be a problem. As you note, there appears to be little critical coverage of them besides the BFI and, perhaps, that book. I can have a go at a "reception" section, although it'll probably only focus on the more critically acclaimed ones (such as "A Warning to the Curious" and "The Signalman"). I suppose it would be best to be honest and state in the article that there is very little information about "The Icehouse", for example. I could always add a little bit about M.R James as a background as well. Bob talk 13:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've been able to find enough to expand on the critical reception and have also been able to add a little background to the series, although I wasn't able to find very much about the actual making of the series. Bob talk 10:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article now appears much more extensive — a fine effort. I feel that the standards are met. Congratulations on this pass! SuperMarioMan 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Bob talk 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)