Talk:Search for Grace

Search for Grace 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: August 16, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Search for Grace appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that to prepare for her role in the television film Search for Grace, actress Lisa Hartman Black underwent hypnosis?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Search for Grace.

Wikipedia

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that to prepare for her role in the television film Search for Grace, actress Lisa Hartman Black underwent hypnosis? Source: Santa Maria Times. Quote: "Lisa [...] decided to try out hypnosis herself to better understand the scenes in which she goes under."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mardijo

5x expanded by Bennv123 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Search for Grace; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@Bennv123: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the August 2023 backlog. Good luck!

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I did some copy editing for clarity and conciseness throughout the article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead does not have to contain citations for statements that are cited in the body. So I removed those citations.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Consistent use of CS1.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot-check: 1, 4, 6, 10, 15, 17. All sources seem to be either newspapers or reliable websites. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every statement appears to have a citation.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'd recommend, per MOS:FILMCAST, the casting section to be more detailed, with a brief description of the characters they play. See Wikipedia:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Film for examples. However, as per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-1, it is not necessary, so feel free to contend this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See 3a. Other than that, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appears to be neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not mine from over months ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Non-free image not overused and reduced. Other image is from Flickr.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Acceptable, though if the picture of Masur could be replaced by either the lead actress or director (in production), that'd be even better. Not a necessity, just food for thought.
	7. Overall assessment.

@1TWO3Writer: Thanks for taking on this review. I’ll do my best to address any points in your review promptly. Regarding #6b, I didn’t use an image of the lead actress because I couldn’t find one on Commons from around the time the film was made/released, and I felt the available images of her from the 1970s or 2010s might not be representative. Unfortunately, I also couldn’t find any images of the director on Commons. Bennv123 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! That comment more was for future reference—if anyone reading this has access to such images, feel free to add them! 123Writer ^talk 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1TWO3Writer: Thanks for the prompt review. I’ll have a look to see how I can improve the “Cast” section per #3a as soon as I can. Bennv123 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, you passed GA criteria anyways, so take that suggestion as just that - one way to continue improving the article. Good job! 123Writer ^talk 07:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.