Talk:Manda Best/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Starting... TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I will review the article and list any existent issues below. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues

• The line "She was first seen on screen on 6 March 2009", has the wrong date format. It should say "March 6, 2009." Also it is oddly worded due to the fact that "on" is said twice. I would recommend changing it to something such as "She made her first appearance on March 6, 2009".
  • Comment The date format is correct. This is a British soap opera character from a British soap, therefore the date should be in the DMY format. - JuneGloom Talk 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence "It was announced in November 2009 that Lawrence had quit EastEnders as she wanted to do a variety of things in her career and she made her final appearance on 12 February 2010", is a run-on and has issues. Again with the date format, "12 February 2010" should be "February 12, 2010". Also, it's worded oddly again and it's a run on. I would recommend "It was announced in November 2009 that Lawrence was departing from EastEnders, as she wanted to do a variety of other things in her career. She made her final appearance to the show on February 12, 2010".

• The line "In June 2009, Manda's family was extended and her disabled son ..." should say "In June 2009, the character's family was extended and her disabled son [...]"

Side note: I'm noticing that this article is very poorly written and I'm barely through the article. If I notice more, I will have to quick fail this article.

• The entire lead is unreferenced. Find WP:RS to add.
  • Comment The lead does not have to be referenced. It is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, therefore the things in it should be referenced in the body of the article. I think quotes should be referenced though. - JuneGloom Talk 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The infobox's date format must be corrected like the other ones.

• In this line "[...] went out with Phil [Mitchell] and knew Minty [Peterson]", remove the brackets from the names.

• In this line: "Walford's community centre where she is teaching a pottery class, where she meets her old acquaintance", "where" is said twice.

• The entire "on screen" subsection consisting of four whole paragraphs is completely unreferenced.

• In the "characterization" subsection, "characterization" is spelled wrong in the title.
  • Comment "Characterization" is American, this is not an American article. - JuneGloom Talk 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• There appears to have been a recent edit war.

After going through this article and finding so many issues with writing/grammar and the substantial lack of sources, I am apologetically quick failing this article under criteria's 1 and 2. I recommend fixing the issues so this doesn't happen again if the article is renominated later on. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See review below...

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I encourage the nominator to fix these issues and if they feel it's good, renominate it later on. This article could use a decent amount of work. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is below average - however... Wrong date formats? This is a British english article and we do not set dates out like that.

Unreferenced lead? All the information is sourced in the below sections - So at best you should have asked the editor to use those citations from the body of the article, not suggest they find a new set. Quoting RS wasn't needed as every source on the page is "RS".

Storyline sections are not strictly required to be sourced when the TV series acts as the source itself per MOS:TV and WP:SOAPS.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of the usage of date formats. The lead should still at least have 1 reference. Yes every source is an RS but not ones that weren't there obviously. "Storylines" should have referencse to episodes. They have episode reference formats that should be used. This article had many other mistakes besides the ones you mentioned and was poorly-written. I stand by my review so if you have a problem, take it to WP:GAR. I anticipate that if you do, they will fail this article as well. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the lead does not need any references per WP:MOSLEAD. Per WP:TVPLOT, references are not necessary for plot sections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But TRL, you quick failed it on the wrong basis. It does make me question why you failed it so eagerly. Considering you reviewed your own GA's with a previous account. RaintheOne ^BAM 22:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not quick fail it on the wrong basis actually. I quick-failed it on the fact that it was poorly written and references so if you think my statements about refs are untrue, it is still poorly written and I will update the review. I was not "eager" to fail it at all. I'm not going to sugarcoat the review and encourage the nominator that they did a good job and it was close to GA. It was poorly written. SImple as that. I don't need to make it "sweet". And you have no right to bring up the past as you don't even know what happened. I was hacked and the GAN was reviewed which is why if you see TRLIJC18's blocklog it says (compromised account). So please, if you're going to bring up the past, get your facts straight. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not contest that this article is not written to a high standard. I contested your reason for quickfailing under critrea two. You cited it as a reason for quickfail, yet you did not use the oppose symbol in critrea two in your check list. Everything that needed to be sourced was. You misunderstood policy on the lead and the guidelines at MOS:TV and plot. That is all I am saying. You could have offered the editor a chance to correct the prose, which I believe could have been fixed pretty easily.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have opened up a GAR (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Manda Best/1). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)