Talk:JR Chandler and Babe Carey

Keep

keeep ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoadbox89 (talk • contribs) 10:08, May 9, 2007

definitly keep!!! jr & babe are super awesome, and definitly a super couple! -maddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddy718 (talk • contribs) 10:12, May 9, 2007

Supercouple status

In order for me to signoff that J.R. and Babe are a supercouple, I'd want to see third-party sources that confirm this. Have they actually been referred to as a supercouple in any outside press? Have they won an award anywhere as "best couple"? --Elonka 00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, J.R. and Babe are particulary just in the same category as Zach Slater and Kendall Hart, a popular couple with supercouple-potential as mentioned among some fans, although couple Zach and Kendall are more popular. I wouldn't quite call either couple a supercouple...at least not yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 (talk • contribs) 01:47, May 15, 2007
  • I'm afraid that one's bad too. The sad truth is, that there are many soap articles on Wikipedia that are in appallingly bad shape. The soap fan community seems to have recently turned its attention to Wikipedia, and more and more articles are showing up. We've been trying to get a handle on things with Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, but we currently have more work than volunteers. Which in this case, means that you followed the template of a "bad" article to make another article that didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines, and then you had the misfortune of having your newer article spotted first and nommed for deletion, before the older ones that were the original problem.  :/ Sorry, I know it doesn't seem fair. Your best options at this point are either (1) find another wiki which is more accepting of "non-encyclopedic content", such as perhaps Wikia, or I bet there's another soap wiki out there somewhere; or (2) study up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and see what's needed here to make articles that will "stick." As it stands, I don't think there's anything that can be done to save this one, unless you can find solid verifiable sources that show that J.R. and Babe are a provably "notable" supercouple. But I do appreciate the work that you put into it, and encourage you to stick around and help with the rest of the soap articles! We definitely need all the hands we can get.  :) --Elonka 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will stick around, but there has to be something that I can do to save this article. I'm going to try to condense it down to what you recommend first. But, I mean, I know that some articles are deleted, and then another editor later will create the same article in their having not known about its past deletion. For instance, this article was here last year, I don't know who created it, but it was deleted, and I recently created it again. Of course, I would feel that this article can be improved to stay rather than having it re-created in the future by some other editor, then deleted again. I won't be able to find any articles apart from soap articles that state J.R. and Babe as a supercouple. They are rather a popular couple than a supercouple, and I can find articles stating that they are popular, but like you said...it would be best to find articles apart from soap articles, which is a task. Elonka, do you think that you could inform me on what the setup differences are in my plot summaries for J.R. and Babe as compared to the plot summaries in an article such as Spkie Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer? It was the Luke and Laura article, as well as the Spike article in which brought me to the conclusion that such plot summaries of that length are acceptable. I now know that the Luke and Laura article wasn't the right "criteria" to follow, but what about articles such as Spike orLucas Scott from the show One Tree Hill that have articles detailing their life? I'm a little confused as to what is the right acceptance of plot summaries when thinking of articles such as those and trying to incorporate what should be the right amount in my own article on two characters with a somewhat extensive background. Flyer22 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The most important thing that this article needs, is not editing of the plot, but verifiable sources that prove that this couple is "notable" enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Without those sources, all the plot editing in the world won't help, sorry. --Elonka 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Something like TVGuide was notable, right? I need more of something like that?

And what do you feel will happen to a lot of these soap articles on Wikipedia at the moment? I was thinking about helping the Zach and Kendall article, and they are a popular couple, but I'm not certain of how many notable sources I can find for some of these soap couple articles.Flyer22 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the Spike and Lucas Scott articles, and they're both crufty -- I wouldn't use them as examples. For articles that are good examples, check out the "Media" sections at WP:GA and WP:FA. Those are the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer.  :) And in terms of soap couples, while you're starting out, I'd recommend working backwards. Instead of picking a subject and trying to find sources for it, it might be easier to first find a source (like buy a reputable book on soap operas or get one from your local library), and then incorporating that information into Wikipedia, since you'll have a ready-made source for anything you'd like to add. Or if you want to branch out from soaps, look around your home for any good reference book, flip through it for a factoid that you think is interesting, and then check Wikipedia to see if it's included or not. If it's not here yet, then you can add it. :) --Elonka 06:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, an article in TVGuide that referred to a supercouple, especially if the article was primarily about that couple, would probably be a good source. --Elonka 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

The current plot summary is running at about 2,500 words. I recommend condensing it to 500-1000 words. The Wikipedia article should have just enough plot for context, and then we can provide links to other sites which have more detail. --Elonka 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I went ahead and stated what I'm about to note in the deletion debate, but I suppose I'll state it here as well: The plot has been greatly edited down more so to focus on the work rather than reiterating the plot. Mention of the couple's popularity is provided with a SID poll article. And an exmaple of their media press has been given with such articles as TVGuide, and the magazine Celebrity Living. Overall, of course, I'm very much dedicated to the article, as well as other articles on Wikipedia Flyer22 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Unfortunately, this article is not at a Good Article level at this time. The prose needs some fairly major copyediting still. The biggest problem that comes across is verb tense. The article should be written in the past tense, since the events happened in the past. The prose is also problematic in some areas. For example, the sentence: "The phrase star-crossed lovers having first been recorded by William Shakespeare in his play Romeo and Juliet, the J.R. and Babe romance has taken on certain facets of this, such as J.R.'s father, Adam, trying to separate the two at first knowledge of their union, but more notably the tragedy aspect has followed." I don't see any reason to have an introductory sentence followed by a colon for each of the recurring themes, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason for writing the themes sections in what is essentially a list format. The League of Copyeditors might be your best bet, but I would recommend getting at least a couple of editors (preferably one who doesn't follow the show) to do some copyediting and make sure the article is easy to understand.

Some of the claims are uncited or are not covered by the citations given (much of the article remains unreferenced altogether). A lot of the discussion contains point of view statements and original research. The article needs some pretty serious work, so I am going to fail it. It would be an interesting article to have listed as a GA, so I hope you continue to improve the article. My biggest suggestions are:

1. Make sure the prose is clear and in the correct tense.
2. Combine choppy sections to form well-developed paragraphs.
3. Remove point of view words and original research (anything that is making a judgment or a claim about the couple, their fans, etc., that is not proven by the citations. Let the facts speak for themselves instead of giving commentary.
4. Add references for anything that remains unreferenced.
5. Have a few people look over it (other editors [including those not involved with the project], peer reviewers, or perhaps the League of Copyeditors).

Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not have listed this article for GA yet...

...and as the creator and main editor of this article, I am a little upset that it and others I've greatly improved were listed without consulting me first. As for the plot summary, it's in correct tense per Wikipedia policy.

I don't have much more to say on this subject, except that of course I was still going to improve this article, and still plan to. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the majority of this article is referenced. Thus, I don't get the GA review saying that most of it isn't. The only parts that aren't referenced are parts of the storyline section. But plots don't typically need to be referenced anyway. Though that seems to be applying more so to film articles these days. This article does need better references in some instances, however. I'll take care of all of this when I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I finally fixed up this article again, and followed some of the suggestions made in the peer review. This article is still not ready for GA status, though, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)