Talk:History of Hollyoaks/GA1

Some Suggestions from an Uninvolved Editor

What I see after quickly looking through the talk page and article edit history is that we have two primary editors who care about the article and have made valuable contributions. I also note that both editors see things differently and have trouble getting along. This is common on WP and in real life also so there is no need to blame anyone or accuse or pick a side. Better to just seek solutions. Here are some suggestions:

• 1) See what you can do to attract a few more editors to work on this article with you so you can break this one on one deadlock and take the focus off of each other. Try posting at the noticeboard for whatever project it falls under and see if some editors will join you.
• 2) Article talk pages are for discussion of content. They are not a place for discussing editor behavior or tendencies etc. At present both editors are violating this policy in my opinion. Maybe one more than the other, maybe not. Either way I'm not interested in becoming a referee. However if one person maintains this standard rigidly and another editor keeps making it personal then that may be grounds for a complaint on the Administrator Noticeboard.

Good luck, I hope you two can find a way to make this work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse the above advice. In addition, editors may gain some assistance from comments I made on my talk page in conversation with Sitush, reprinted in edited format here:

• It's actually not that bad an article. Line by line it's pretty okay, and well referenced - no problem with its current B class rating. You just need to fix the rest of the referencing issues, condense down the paragraphs into larger paragraphs, maybe stick in some subheadings, and then see if the entire thing makes sense or whether it could be improved by a reorganisation. It clearly would have failed a full GAR if it hadn't been quickfailed but it wouldn't have been a complete wash. These articles are notoriously difficult to write and I think everyone involved should feel proud that it's, on average, as good as it is. Just not GA standard, that's all. [...] In relation to the plots of soap operas and their behind-the-scenes working I, personally, would generally consider a dedicated soap gossip magazine to be a reasonable source unless it were making a truly extraordinary claim or it were contradicted elsewhere. But [...] I'll leave that discussion for those with more experience in soap articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry you've had to wait in line so long to get such a depressing result, but I'm afraid I have to quickfail this for having warning tags on the article which are clearly still relevant. I'm going to take one more look over the article to make sure I'm right, and then proceed to fail. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I am failing this article under quick-fail criterion three:

• (3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.

I am therefore proceeding to fail without conducting a further review of the article. However, I note that it is generally a well-referenced article, and I urge you to continue work and re-nominate in the future. High priority tasks include reducing the number of single-sentence paragraphs, considering further level 3 section headers to improve readability, and rewriting the lead paragraph in conformance with the manual of style for lead sections. Best wishes - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am actually pleased that you have confirmed my discussion points, and note in particular your concern about single-sentence paragraphs (one of the things which make it read like a list). Let's see if we can move things on a bit, although it will take a miracle to get it to GA status at any point in my lifetime. I still think that it needs cutting right back, if only to resolve all the issues of plagiarism and because much of the content is irrelevant to the article title. Also because much of it is covered in other, better WP articles. .Sitush (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)