Talk:Creatures of Impulse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to
|
 |
Creatures of Impulse has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
 |
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 18, 2008. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks. |  |
|
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project. | ||
|
You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
 |
Creatures of Impulse has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] GA Nom
I would suggest that you withdraw the GA nom and get a peer review first. I don't think that this article is anything like GA-ready. However, I would nominate it at DYK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, your view of GA always was closer to FA. It's actually quite a bit lower than that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the criticism - probably would want to add more for FA, but three reviews is probably decent for GA. I also got a few people to review it, and incorporated their suggestions. User:Awadewit should come in for special praise in this respect: She helped with the copyediting, and did a big chunk of the research for the reviews, using a service her University has access to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit conflict
Sorry, I didn't realize you're still working. I'll sign off now and take a look tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this was my fault: I didn't realise YOU were still working, saw you had edited, and made a tweak. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] To review or not to review
Hello, I was considering reviewing this article for GAC, but I noticed that there has been quite a lot of activity over the past few days. Is this article ready for a review at this time? If not, I suggest withdrawing the nomination per Ssilver's comments above and waiting until the progress has come to a resting point. It would be difficult to review while substantial work is still being completed. After a cursory read, I do see that the article needs additional work on the references (page numbers are missing, formatting is inconsistent, some claims are unverified, etc) and areas of the prose seem rushed. I doubt any reviewer would easily pass this article, so you may want to rethink the timing IMO. María (habla conmigo) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've added page numbers, except for The Graphic's review, because the database used to access that just gives the issue. I'm not sure which claims you think are unreferenced, though, outside of the lead (which is a summary, after all) I think it's fairly well-referenced. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Maria. I think the article has come to rest now. In addition, Shoemaker has addressed all the content and editorial points that I raised. Neither I nor Shoemaker have more to add to it at this time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
The GA review has been archived and moved here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] footnote formatting - separator line
I removed the line above the superscripted internal footnotes in the summary and characters sections and italicized them instead. I think they look confusing, as if a new section were starting, and I just don't like the way they look. It seems to me that italics adequately sets them apart from the section that they footnote, and that the line separation makes it hard for the reader to understand what is going on. Can you either take out the lines or come up with another solution? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image
As for that The Graphic image - You know, I really do suspect they repurposed an illustration from the short story. It fits the Sergeant's reaction to Jenny in the short story much better than the corresponding events in the play. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyeditor's notes
I've finished a top-to-bottom copyedit of this interesting article. I didn't want to be too heavy-handed and give in to my impulse to revise the reference system, but I don't think the quadruple system works well or conforms to the usual Wikipedia style. I'd suggest incorporating the six extra notes marked with superscript numbers into the larger set of notes appearing in the Notes section. One fairly easy way to do this would be to use <ref> ... </ref>, inserting, for example, "In the play, only her niece (and a few servants) live with her, and Peter instead becomes a farmer. This has no effect on the plot." between the ref tags. A further complication arises with the second note, "Jenny's love for the sergeant has very little role to play in the story, and no direct reference occurs in the play." This note is itself footnoted twice. To eliminate the awkwardness of notated notes, simply include an internal note or notes at the end of the new main footnote inside the ref tags: "See Gilbert (1890), pp. 161-73 and Gilbert (1911), pp. 309-27." Please ask if what I'm saying doesn't make sense. I'll be happy to come back and take another look later, if you like, or help make the switch from four sets of notes to one unified set. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
