Talk:Get to the Heart: The Barbara Mandrell Story/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: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on as part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive. Comments to come today or tomorrow Mujinga (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bennv123 nice work on this - I made a few comments below, the only real concern is source 11 not backing the claim in the article. I'll put this on hold, I'm fine with you taking more time than a week to reply if you need to, just as long as we communicate about it. Lastly, please answer things one by one so I see what is answered and what isn't. Shouldn't take you too long! Mujinga (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Thanks for taking on this review. Regarding #11, I based the "filmed in and around May 1997" on the May 1997 source stating the film was "now being filmed for next season". If you're still not comfortable with this sourcing, I can try to find a better source or rephrase that claim. As for your other points, I'll address them soon. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your other points below. Let me know if I missed anything. Bennv123 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Great now I see! Congrats on the good article :) Mujinga (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

copyvio check

• earwig hits are just names, so fine

spotchecks and referencing

• On this version
• spotcheck 15 - Voorhees was also critical of McCormick's portrayal of Mandrell, writing that the actress "looks perky but fails to communicate any of the electric personality and the burning desire to perform that made Mandrell a star".[15] - ok
• spotcheck 12 - The film earned a national Nielsen rating of 13.6 - ok
• spotcheck 11 - in and around May 1997 - not in source (rats this was all going so well!)
  • As stated above, I based the "filmed in and around May 1997" on the May 1997 source stating the film was "now being filmed for next season". If you're still not comfortable with this sourcing, I can try to find a better source or rephrase that claim.

• Ah apologies, I missed that and was quite confused because all the other sourcing was on point. "Compiled from staff and wire reports" can be deleted as an author, or a bot will come round and do it eventually Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• spotcheck 2 - newspapers is beigng weird, so couldn't find it and AGF
• spotcheck 5 - all ok (and mentions LA)
• spotcheck 3 - ok
• sources used are reliable. the amazon link is only being used for film length so that's ok. no original research.
• references are well laid-out.

images

• images are appropriately licensed and relevant
• it's not a pass/fail issue but would be great if you could add alt descriptions per MOS:ACCIM

article status

• article is broad and focused, and neutral in tone. it is also stable.

prose

• "Barbara Mandrell's musical talent and love for performing" link Mandrell on first mention in body
• plot - better to use last names than first names, unless it's very confusing, per MOS:LASTNAME
  • Changed "Barbara" to "Mandrell" and "Ken" to "Dudney". Left the other first names such as "Irby" as those individuals share the "Mandrell"/"Dudney" last names.
• "Kim Lankford as Joann Berry" - IMDB doesn't give Lankford's character name, can i check it's Joann and not Joan?
  • It's technically "JoAnn Berry" (Mandrell's real-life manager) and I've edited the capitalisation in the article.
• lead - looks good!

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.