Talk:The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this. NumerounovedantTalk 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and reception

You might want link in joke in the lead, also i don't think the "appearing" in opening paragraph is necessary. The precision bit in the "lauding its writing and precision" is a little vague, maybe a little more on what exact was done with precision?
- Thanks; I've made all three fixes. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the reception section is essentially cluttered with quotes, you could try incorporating some of them into indirect speech.
- Yes, that's fair. I've removed a few. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it always better to find one source that can substantiate the more general claims, like the dark and clever bits here. A review roundup, or a general discussion pieceis always better than 5-6 odd reviews.
- I don't really have that, I'm afraid. I'm trying to make general claims on the basis of several sources; I really need to cite them all to avoid original research, I fear. I definitely understand your point, though, and I am open to suggestions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the rest. NumerounovedantTalk 06:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Well, this section has some awfully long odrect quotes as well. I suggest that you find an alternative for incorporating them into the text more naturally.
- Yes, thanks, good point. I have removed/trimmed some of the quotes. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

I am not sure if the repeated wiki-links for the publishers comply with the MoS. (WP:OVERLINKING)
- I believe this is acceptable. I can't find an explicit mention of linking information in reference lists in the MOS (but I've not looked very hard) and I do note that I've had many articles go through FAC with this amount of linking. From WP:OVERLINK: "Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom". I think reference lists fall into this category. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rest look great. Fine work on the article. I'll go through it once again when you've addressed these comments. NumerounovedantTalk 06:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this review, which is warmly appreciated. I'm afraid I'm pretty packed for the rest of today, and will be out of town from Monday to Saturday, so may not have time to give these comments the attention they deserve for a little while. Thanks for your patience! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review; I think I've gotten to everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comments

Fine work Josh, looks good to me. Pass NumerounovedantTalk 07:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]