Wikipedia:Peer review/Details Cannot Body Wants/archive1

Details Cannot Body Wants

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for GA and this will be my first nomination outside of MRT articles. I think the biggest issue is copy-editing and formatting. Comments on other aspects are appreciated.

Thanks, Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Icepinner, I made these edits to your article. I removed a few links per WP:OL and moved some refs in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. One issue I found with your article was the similar wording throughout it to this ref, which is the main ref used in this article. Many phrases or sentences are closely paraphrased from the ref.

• The article: the cultivation of a coy voice, the ref: the cultivation of the coy voice
• The article: she had the play's four concepts as well as two images (one of a woman crawling on the floor with a trail of pots and pans and the other of a woman undergoing a breast examination) already in mind, the ref: The four concepts were in her head when she sat down to write the play, and she also had two images in mind — one of a woman crawling on the floor with a motley assortment of pots and pans trailing behind her, and the other of the breast examination.
• The article: Although PELU was against the "adult language" and "taboo gestures" (such as grabbing/scratching the crotch) used in the play, the ref: It also features some of what Pelu terms as "adult language" and taboo gestures such as the grabbing and scratching of crotches.

These don't show up on Earwig as NewspaperSG articles are composed of images, but the chance of copyvio is still high. More should also be added to the reception section to better show the mixed opinions from critics. Other than that, the rest of the article is detailed. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Actuall7 Thanks! I tried to find more for the reception of the play but I couldn't really find anything (it's a pretty unknown play with a limited run so maybe that's why). Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 09:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to ping you earlier so I didn't know if you've read it or not (that's my bad). Anyways, I found more sources, thanks to Samwalton for recommending me to use Proquest! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Icepinner, the expanded reception section certain looks better now. I would also recommend using NewspaperArchive.com, JSTOR, or World Scientific to look for sources in the future, although when I checked them I didn't find much regarding this article. However, the close paraphrasing I mentioned above is still present. Most of the paraphrasing in the article is fine for the most part, but I think the three listed above are the most problematic. If possible, please reword them. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 10:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Actuall7 I'm back!. Anyways, I'm done, though I don't know if the new paraphrasing makes the flow of the article "awkward" . Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back @Icepinner, I hope you had a nice trip. Upon a second look at your article, I personally couldn't find any other outstanding issues, so I think it's good to be submitted for GAN, especially so you can get a proper reviewer. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Actuall7! :) Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)