Talk:The Red Throne

The Red Throne has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 25, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Red Throne appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Roddy Piper and Keith David, who throw punches at each other in They Live (1988), provided their voices for "The Red Throne" in which their characters engage in a similar fight?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Red Throne.

Wikipedia

Cartoon Network Low‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Red Throne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna:Been a week -- Any updates on this one ? — Cirt (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead

Link to animated series.
- I tend not to: animation is already a common term, as is series when it relates to television. 23W
"from a story devised by several other writers" could you be more specific? Also, are they credited writers?
- Clarified: "Seo Kim and Somvilay Xayaphone wrote the episode from a synopsis devised by several other writers ..." 23W
There's more from the Production section you could summarize in the lead.
- Expanded. 23W
Put ratings info in lead.
- Done. 23W
"Originally aired on 10 February 2014, writers of entertainment- and education-related websites praised the episode" this is actually a sentence structure error, as it implies that the writers aired on that date if you read it carefully. :) Might I suggest "The episode originally aired on 10 February 2014, receiving (INSERT RATINGS FIGURE HERE) and a positive reception from writers of entertainment and education-related websites."
- lol, didn't catch that. I made it two sentences instead, reads easier. 23W
I don't see anything about the crew perceiving its online response as negative later in the article…
- Mentioned at the start of the second paragraph in "Reception". Clarified that the "online reception" refers to fan reaction. 23W

Production

I don't think you should repeat the same opening sentence at the beginning of the Production section, as it's a bit repetitive in my opinion.
- Omitted. 23W
"Nada, the main subject of the film, finds a pair sunglasses revealing a breed of aliens disguised as humans in control of society." Remove this sentence--it goes into unnecessary and irrelevant detail about the film, and anybody who wants to find out more can easily click on the hyperlink.
- Removed. 23W
Are the appearances in those other media really homages or more parodies or mockings?
- Changed to "spoofs". 23W

Release and reception

Could you be more specific than "over two million"?
- Changed to approximately two million, would note decimals, but Nielsens data isn't meant to be interpreted that precisely. 23W
I can't tell if some of the parts of the Sava review are direct quotes or not. If they are not, I might recommend changing that for the parts "The theme of life following a broken romance benefits from this complexity," and "crafty metaphor for the personal changes an individual from a past relationship experiences, as well as the nostalgia felt over such a relationship," as they could seem a bit non-neutral or synthesis…
- Tried tinkering with that paragraph. I try to paraphrase as best as I can because reception sections have a tendency to become quote farms in my opinion. I added saying verbs to switch the voice from us to Sava. 23W
Instead of using parentheses for the writers' publications, I would just say either "of PUBLICATION" or "writing for PUBLICATION".
- Done. 23W
Why do you bring Sava's review back in the second paragraph?
- Merged. 23W

@23W: Here are some comments. Looking good so far! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Thanks for reviewing! I hope you had fun reading, and hopefully these changes make the article read a little better. 23W 07:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@23W: Thanks for your responses! I like the article much more now. Thank you for your civil and quick responses to my concerns. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 15:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final evaluation[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: