Talk:The Bold Type

The Bold Type 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: November 1, 2019. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Bold Type appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 December 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the television series The Bold Type is inspired by the life and career of former Cosmopolitan magazine editor-in-chief Joanna Coles? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bold Type.

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

Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Romance Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll take this up, comments should be added soon. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be my interpretation of the MOS, but I think you might want some refs at the end of the lead if it's going to name publications specifically.
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: very fond of the hatnote.
  • I wish I could take credit for this, but it was already in place by the time I began contributing to the article. I personally love it as well! KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead, "who also executive produces the series" may read better as "who also serves as executive producer on the series".
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead doesn't need to contain a full principal and secondary cast list. That's what the cast list (and infobox) is for. The main three and Melora Hardin should do fine.
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead a good length.
• Tweaked Premise section a little, but otherwise good.
• Some refs for the episode table (also see note in Coverage) could be added.
  • Question: What articles would you suggest I cite in the episode table? The reason I'm asking is all the refs in the List of The Bold Type episodes are located in the sections that follow the table. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KyleJoan: Anything that says when the episodes began and finished airing, even reviews that mention it are fine. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Development section good; writing is a little plain but not bad. It suffices, but could be improved with some creative ways to connect the different statements.
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Casting section, "quietly tough and confident" seems like it's a quote from somewhere; if so, it should be in quotation marks.

• As does the description of Lauren Park.

• • •  Done and  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There's actually some odd phrasing in this section, perhaps a bit of a rewrite is needed to make it more natural and less repetitive? If you want pointers, I'm happy to suggest tweaks.
  •  Done. I would, however, love some suggestions as well! KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Broadcast section is even more short, repetitive declarative sentences. While correct, it's lacking on the 'well-written' front.
  • I think I fixed this. I also added a quote from the president of Freeform regarding the network's relationship with Hulu. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Describing reviews by saying "X says: long quote" is poor style. The Rotten Tomatoes parts come under this, and though some of the main reviews have longer intros, the quotes could still be better incorporated, notably, the paragraph chunk from Matt Zoller Seitz.
  •  Done. I really tried to incorporate all of the quotes into the context of the general points; the only two comments that stand formatted as "X says: long quote" are both of Seitz's comments. I thought that the first comment was so meticulously written and impossible to break down into chunks, especially since it was only a sentence–albeit a long one; the other one I left as it was to maintain the formatting to make it seem as if the style is deliberate to match the author quoted. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• More work on the review section in terms of structure.

• • •  Done. Please let me know if more work is needed! KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs work
  • Hmm, much better except the review section still has spots of 'X said quote'; perhaps try paraphrasing the views more and add only a short quote? I guess the aim is to summarize critical views, not transplant them, so to write like that. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead overview seems good
• Premise section could have some expansion in touch with the later seasons
  • Would that provide too much of a summary of the series? I originally believed that the premise section was to explain the story's starting point and its background, but I could add more details regarding the second and third seasons if you believe that's appropriate! KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KyleJoan: Some series pages do give season summaries, but each series also starts from a new point, so it wouldn't be unusual to mention Kat's political leanings, Sutton's more public relationship, in terms of a new starting point and how they deal with it. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Cast/character summaries standard
• The episodes section is a link and a table; though there is a separate article dedicated to episode coverage, perhaps something could go here? Also, combining the short Broadcast section with this one might help.
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Casting section suffices - but is there no more information? Also, is there any information on how actors worked on characterization or on the conceptualization of characters? Other series GA's have these (Money Heist is a solid example) - if the info isn't in RS, it's fine, but the section can be improved :)
  • Unfortunately, the articles I found regarding characterization only cover their approach after they had been cast (i.e., Katie Stevens, one of the leads, explained her approach to her storyline in the second season here.), which I believe is more appropriate for the cast section. However, since this information isn't available for most of the main cast members, I was afraid that adding it there would not adhere to WP:UNDUE. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that would be a little unequal, even if she's kind of supposed to be the main character. Kingsif (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there no filming info for later seasons?
  • I added filming details for the third and fourth seasons but couldn't find any on the second by a reputable source. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If you're having a broadcast date for some countries, you should also have one for the other country that they're being compared against (i.e. when did it start showing in the UK?).
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs attention
  • Much improved Kingsif (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Appropriate for length
• Good use of tables
• Pass

• Good
• Pass

• Clean
• Pass

• Sources generally good, a few more on the less RS (but not at tabloid level) side, but suitable for what they're sourcing
• Just noticed part of the Premise section is unreferenced; as it's not plot, it needs one.
  •  Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The Australia-gets-episodes-the-same-day-as-US seems implausible, if just because of the massive (15 hour) time difference that would mean Australia could theoretically have them before they air in the US depending on the time of broadcast - are we sure that's what is meant?
  • That's actually my bad; I inserted the sentence after having misinterpreted the source cited. My apologies. KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, no worries. Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs attention
  • Looks good Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Check good, some heavy quoting inflates it
• Free use image in article; fair use cover slate in infobox
• Pass

• on hold Certainly some areas to address, especially on writing style. Kingsif (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments, Kingsif! I'll be sure to address them all in the next day or two. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 06:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hi there, Kingsif! I believe I made all of the changes you suggested, so if you'd like to take a look at it again at your convenience, I'd really appreciate it! I do have a question. You recently modified a sentence in the filming section into Filming in New York was only done to get good exterior shots of some of the city's iconic locations, such as the Brooklyn Bridge and Central Park. I was wondering whether it would acceptable to remove the word good from this statement because I feel as if it holds a connotation that they've tried filming elsewhere and the footage turned out bad. Thanks again for taking the time to give this article your attention! KyleJoan^talk 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've made that edit. Thanks for all the work on the article! Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @KyleJoan: generally good, reviews could still use some work; if you want to discuss/work on some phrasings here, ping me! Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I think I fixed it by replacing one of the quotes and shortening the other. I would love to discuss them if you find either of them inappropriate, though! KyleJoan^talk 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderful! Meets standards for GA - still room for improvement, but it's good and quite nice. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Have a wonderful weekend, Kingsif! KyleJoan^talk 04:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/a35326867/the-bold-type-season-5-news-release-date-spoilers/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 10:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]