Talk:Darren Osborne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC) This is going to take me a while. I am not very familiar with the GA process so I will take this one slowly, so bear with me. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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):

   There are a few issues that becomes apparent through a brief skim of the article. The prose is quite choppy at times, and seems to be a little bit simple and repeditive. It doesn't flow very well. For example, "Darren Osborne is a fictional character from the British Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks, played by Ashley Taylor Dawson. He made his first on-screen appearance on 18 November 1996, then played by Adam Booth." There are a few typos I spotted at a glance, loose instead of lose and caisson instead of casino. The article does do a decent job of complying with WP:INUNIVERSE however.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Reference formatting is good and reasonably uniform across the board. I note that there are a few dead links (which you can find here so these need to be fixed if possible. The fact that none of the storylines section is sourced (even using {{Cite episode}} creates the potential for original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All major aspects are covered within the article. The glaring issue is the size of the storylines section, it's very long and unfocused. It would be better if this could be combined with the Character development section, in such a way that Gregory House does, but at a miniumum I'd suggest cutting it down, at least by 2/3 and using cite episode where possible. The rest looks good, but the reception section may have potential to be expanded, but at present is adequate.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No major issues with neutrality from what I observed. I admit that I haven't had a very close look, mainly due to the larger problems that I saw with the article, but nothing stuck out at me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars to speak of in the history.

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):

   Rationales are OK, though a little vague. I would like to see a better rationale for either the infobox image or the one in the characterisation section, and think that only one of these is necessary. The resolution of the infobox image should be scaled down a bit more, I generally use 250x375px but it's OK as is.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately at this stage it's a fail. There are quite a few issues that need to be addressed before this can become a GA, so I would encourage a good copyedit, as well as condensing some of the plot information. Feel free to use User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet as you work through the article, if you can tick everything off the list then you'll know this is ready. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey can i ask why it was failed so fast? After waiting for the review for a while i wasn't even given a chance to make any changes and per discussion soap plots do not have to be sourced. The guidelines are here and the discussionhere. I was willing to make changes but instead it was failed. D4nnyw14 (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I am off to bed but will post an explanation in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not up yet, but just a quick note, if you want an article off, you could use Martha Logan. Take it with a grain of salt though as it's an article I got to GA, but figured it might help. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks i'll look at it. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in a response, I've been quite busy today, but am happy to clarify my reasons for failing this article at this time. At times GA reviewers will put a nomination on hold to address minor issues, normally within a one week period. Part of the problem here is that there are a lot of issues to be addressed with this article, as I listed above. I read over the discussions and links that you provided above, however a localised consensus cannot override global consensus, which generally exists at WP:PLOT, as well as Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations and Wikipedia:WAF#Plot_summaries. There's the potential for copyright violations as well, in-detail plot summaries are troublesome, as well as original research. Without any referencing there is no way for anyone to verify if the content in the plot section is accurate. The length of plot and lack of referencing was the main reason I failed this, but the issues with prose also stuck out. If you address the issues with plot and get a general copyedit done, I'd be happy to re-review it, but it needs some solid work first. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's such a pain to need to source a soap opera though. One plot that might only need a line could span upto 20 episodes. Episodes aren't titled either. That's what the discussion was about. Anyway i've started cutting down the plot how much further does it need to be cut? After i've finished the plot i'll adress the rest of the issues. One other point is this character in particular has been in the soap opera for nearly 12 years so the plot is short in comparison to what he has done in his time. Thanks for the reply D4nnyw14 (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a pain to source and cut down, its the reason I haven't got Jack Bauer to GA, it will be very hard to condense 8 seasons of plot down. Keep at it, and feel free to poke me at my talk page when you feel it's ready. Best of luck, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, didn't notice it. I think it's ready except for the storylines. How much further do they need to be cut down? I don't know how i'm going to source it either. D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)