Talk:In the Best of Families (miniseries)

In the Best of Families (miniseries) 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: April 3, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from In the Best of Families (miniseries) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 May 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the miniseries In the Best of Families was based on the book Bitter Blood which in turn is a recount of the real life murders of Fritz Klenner? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In the Best of Families (miniseries).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Low‑importance 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:In the Best of Families (miniseries)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to review this (this is my first time). Just doing my part to help clear the massive backlog. Cessaune [talk] 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go backwards as I think that is the best way to lay out this review:

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio. Y

The few images that are used in the article are relevant, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of relevant images elsewhere (I tried finding one for a young Kelly McGillis on Commons but there was none).

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Y

No edit wars here. Definitely stable, looking at the history.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

It's written neutrally, with no editorial bias that I see. Since this isn't a controversial topic, I think it does a good job of representing the sources, and the critics, fairly. However, I see an issue that shouldn't be a problem if fixed:

• Delete Some critics panned the miniseries, and exchange it with a generic 'the miniseries garnered generally negative reviews' or something similar (you can delete it completely if need be). The word "some" in this context seems like a vague WP:WEASEL word. For the same reason, delete the phrase Other reviews were more positive. Typically, a Rotten Tomatoes rating is placed at the front to characterize critics' general response, but, since this miniseries is not rated on Rotten Tomatoes, and does not seem to be rated by any major (RS, of course) rating company, I think characterizing the general opinion is unnecessary.

 Done Removed. Bennv123 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Y

Based on my reading of the sources, the article is about as usefully detailed as it can be. The plot summary is broad, yet refined; the production section is similar. The release section is concise and to-the-point. The critical response section is, while a little long for my taste, well within what could reasonably be described as staying focused on the topic.

I'll finish the review later. Cessaune [talk] 04:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cessaune: Thanks for taking on this review. I'll update each point you raise with the {{done}} template to indicate when I've addressed it. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Y
   • Plenty of sources; most paragraphs have multiple sources (barring the lead and plot summary per WP:PLOTSUM and MOS:LEADCITE). Nice.
2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines Y
   • Nothing seems to be controversial. At a quick glance, some of the sources are already considered reliable at WP:RS/P. Reading through it, the sources are generally reliable for this type of thing.
3. it contains no original research Y
   • Everything is directly sourced with plenty of citations to verify the statements made in the article.
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Y
   • Doesn't seem to be any copyright violations or plagiarism. I had a bit of a problem with one source; that's cleared up.

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Y
   • Good writing; little to be said here.
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Y
   • Does all this very well.

So, in summary...

Good job!

The article has passed. Cessaune [talk] 15:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]