It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the
2017 WikiCup.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Production
"the BBC had not requested one" I think this would read smoother with the word yet inserted after not
At 497 words, it's a tad too long. I will suggest particular places to trim as I read through, but feel free to start before I get to it if you'd like. it's a bit longer than recommended, but the plot does seem to warrant the extra space.
", in stilted dialogue," - this isn't needed. The detail on the commentary provides a better idea of the scene.
I saw that, what I mean is - why did she empty it, and what is the significance of showing it to Julian when he's dying? It seems connected to his heart attack somehow, but there's no clear connection in the current summary.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
" is revealed to be Klaus, who is revealed to be Simon" - repetitive. In the interest of simplification, how would you feel about leaving out the Simon part and just referring to the character as Klaus throughout? I don't think anything would be lost.
Well, it's the revelation that "Klaus" is just a character; he tears off a fake moustache and drops the Austrian accent. I do think this is an important part of the plot (the layer upon layer of character that Shearsmith is playing: Klaus, Simon, fake Krampus, actual Krampus, actor) but I am open to suggestions of how to rephrase this.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That's disputable; I note that there is a long-running dispute on
Talk:Champagne about this, as well as plenty of articles a Google away. I followed the current convention on our article on the product.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"Critics generally responded extremely positively" - that's a lot of adverbs. What about "Critics generally gave The Devil of Christmas extremely positive reviews; ..."
"An unsigned review of "The Bill", the second episode of the third series, in i suggested " - I think this would read better as "In i, an unsigned review of the following episode, "The Bill", suggested"
One source was previously challenged as unreliable by another editor, but the nominator provided a detailed and satisfactory explanation on the talk page.
It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the
2017 WikiCup.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Production
"the BBC had not requested one" I think this would read smoother with the word yet inserted after not
At 497 words, it's a tad too long. I will suggest particular places to trim as I read through, but feel free to start before I get to it if you'd like. it's a bit longer than recommended, but the plot does seem to warrant the extra space.
", in stilted dialogue," - this isn't needed. The detail on the commentary provides a better idea of the scene.
I saw that, what I mean is - why did she empty it, and what is the significance of showing it to Julian when he's dying? It seems connected to his heart attack somehow, but there's no clear connection in the current summary.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
" is revealed to be Klaus, who is revealed to be Simon" - repetitive. In the interest of simplification, how would you feel about leaving out the Simon part and just referring to the character as Klaus throughout? I don't think anything would be lost.
Well, it's the revelation that "Klaus" is just a character; he tears off a fake moustache and drops the Austrian accent. I do think this is an important part of the plot (the layer upon layer of character that Shearsmith is playing: Klaus, Simon, fake Krampus, actual Krampus, actor) but I am open to suggestions of how to rephrase this.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That's disputable; I note that there is a long-running dispute on
Talk:Champagne about this, as well as plenty of articles a Google away. I followed the current convention on our article on the product.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"Critics generally responded extremely positively" - that's a lot of adverbs. What about "Critics generally gave The Devil of Christmas extremely positive reviews; ..."
"An unsigned review of "The Bill", the second episode of the third series, in i suggested " - I think this would read better as "In i, an unsigned review of the following episode, "The Bill", suggested"
One source was previously challenged as unreliable by another editor, but the nominator provided a detailed and satisfactory explanation on the talk page.