Talk:Sherlock Holmes (1965 TV series)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead too short for article
Lead does not make clear the relationship between what it calls two different series, which is quite confusing
Plot is very short and also not a plot: it vaguely describes who Holmes is
The first three paragraphs of the Development section would serve better as one. The information should also be linked better.
Quote blocks seem to take over the development section, some of which should be in casting and some in response. Could easily be lighter on the quoting, but article at least needs to be structured better
Could also condense paragraphs, cut down on quotes, in the Hiatus section
The info in Planned continuation, Unused scripts, and German remake could easily be made part of the top section of Episodes
Needs work

Lead barely informative, is misleading, doesn't cover main points of article
Plot is non-existent
Production seems good from info available
German remake is mostly a statement that it exists; if there is no more info on it, could this be incorporated well somewhere else rather than have a one-line section?
Reception only has one critic. Fair if only one exists, but not a good view of the general reception otherwise.
Fail

Episode list could use the standard episode template, and maybe a small box above indicating that those highlighted grey don't or only partially survive
Fair use infobox image
If commons images of actors exist, they could be included.
Needs attention

All sources seem good
Several members of the cast, including all Holmeses, are not cited (at least in Cast section)
"Years later, Wilmer would briefly return to the role...", "repeated between July and September 1970, again in a different running order" and "Twelve of the Cushing episodes..." seem to be unreffed
BBC Video part unreffed
After "Twelve of the Cushing episodes", the ref is a note and should be made into one (see Template:efn)
Fail

Good, unless there are more reviews and it's built curated bias through only including one...
pass

on hold style and coverage issues that need addressing. Article needs restructure and expansion. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusSholto: in case missed the talk page notification Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Cooper, Damiantgordon, and Philip Cross: Looks like ThaddeusSholto hasn't edited WP in a long time, would any of you like to take up the GAN? Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fail for no response from any editors in over a week. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]