Talk:Maggie Horton/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm really don't think that this article meets the GA criteria and I'm very surprised that the reviewer passed it with no comments or suggestions for improvement at all.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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:

Prose and manual of style

The article is not reasonably well written. There are many prose issues including spelling and grammar. Tenses seem to be interchangeable. I will highlight a few things I noticed:

Lead

• "Maggie's marriage to Mickey Horton was central to the character [...] culminating with his onscreen death in 2010." Does a marriage "culminate" in someone's death? That seems a little strange. Done
• "In the 2000's..." - there should be no apostrophe here. Done
• "many widely read soap opera-related tabloids would routinely publish" - why is this not in simple past tense? Done
  • "many widely read soap opera-related tabloids were routinely publish articles about forthcoming developments..." - this makes even less sense than before--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• The information in the lead does not flow well and it jumps around in time. For example, why do you have a sentence about the actress being on the show for 36 years, followed by a sentence about who the character's daughter is, followed by a sentence about the actress winning an Emmy?
• The first sentence of the last paragraph is missing a full stop / period Done
  • No, it's still missing. Yes, I could do it myself, but I'm concerned that you think you've done that.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm really not sure what you mean by this? Sami50421 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
      • punctuation
• "He created the character of Maggie, as a romantic interest, for original character Mickey Horton." - this sentence doesn't need any commas Done
• "Maggie's original character plot outline was Mickey losing his memory, and stumbling the farm inhabited by Maggie Simmons." - this doesn't make sense. Done
  • Done (Information removed)
  • Better, but still not grammatically correct.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Maggie's parents were initially killed in a car accident, which also leaves her crippled" - tense Done
  • No, you just swapped the tenses around, they still don't match.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Done (Information Removed) Sami50421 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Casting

• "Bell considered the role ideal for Suzanne Rogers, a former rocket." - in what way was she a rocket? Done
• There is no need to link words like energetic, farm, girl, chair; there's overlinking throughout, but this paragraph's probably the worst. There are also several links to disambiguation pages Done
  • And producers, crutches, television. That's just this paragraph. You need to remove overlinking from the whole article. Common words shouldn't be linked. Words shouldn't be linked more than once in a section. (check, for example, the amount of times Suzanne Rogers is linked). Links need to be checked to see if they link to disambiguation pages or to the article you intend them to link to.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "She was described as being one of the most energetic girls on Daytime." - described by whom? Done
  • What critics? This is vague, and would need a citation to a reliable source.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Known for her famous red hair..." - known by whom? Done
  • "by fans" is also very vague. Are you speaking for all fans? There is no citation here either. As far as prose goes, "famous" is redundant to the fact that she is known for her red hair. --BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "The news of Suzanne Rogers being cast as Maggie was a typical move." - I'm not really sure what this sentence means, but it seems like original research Done
  • Ok, you changed one word, (which, incidentally means the opposite of what you had said before), but I still don't really derive much meaning from the sentence, and it's not grammatically correct. I see you added on the sentence fragment following it, but it's not much better I'm afraid.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Taking an actress who loves to dance, and her character being a crippled farm girl." - this is not a complete sentence Done
• "The part of Maggie on the Daytime serial provided an almost ideal alternative." - alternative to what?
  • Ok, you've added a bit here, but I'm still none the wiser. What's her normal lifestyle, and why would she need an ideal alternative from it?--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Suzanne Rogers played the part we'll wearing crutches, originally producers wanted her to be in a chair." - you've got a random apostrophe there, it's not great grammatically. Do you mean a wheelchair? Done
  • Why did they change their minds because of her being a Rockette? What's that got to do with it?--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• "They changed their decision knowing Rogers to be a former Rochette" - ah! do you mean Rockette? If so, that's two different incorrect spellings of it, it would also help to link the first occurrence as not all readers (particularly non-US ones) will know what that means. Done
• "Althought" -? Done
• "The character was originally supposed to be short lived, however popularity with on screen pairing with Mickey Horton proved to be a different story" - doesn't make sense, grammatically Done
  • "Popularity with on screen pairing with Mickey Horton proved to be a different story"? this is still not great. The only change you made was to make it two sentences, but that wasn't the problem.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Early Storylines and onwards

• "One day Mickey Horton, under the name Marty Hanson..." - why under the name of Marty? This is one of many points of confusion in the article where her storylines are being discussed. Several characters are suddenly mentioned without being explained. Who's Stefano? Who's Andre? The storylines are ridiculous (which is the soap's fault!) but it means that they're also confusing and need to be explained carefully. the story lines involving the various daughters are confusing. One minute it says that Maggie has been killed, the next, she has returned. At one point it says that Evan is Sarah's father Done
• There's a repetition of three sentences for some reason at the section "1975-1976" Done
• "In 1984 Maggie, and Suzanne Rogers are diagnozed..." - apart from the spelling error, this sentence is strange because it implies that Maggie and Suzanne are part of the same reality. Also, you wouldn't normally use the present tense to talk about a real person in the past. Done
• This illness information is repeated later for some reason. Done
• Does Maggie literally buy Tuscany in Italy? Done

References/Sources/citations

I have concerns with a number of these sources as I mentioned at the talkpage. I'll repost the list here for convenience, with the original GA reviewer's comments

• about.com; what makes Gwen Morett reliable, is she a recognised expert?
  • Answer: Gwen was featured as the guest recap writer for the Days of Our Lives site before acting as the full-time Guide for almost three years. It was a role that enabled her to relive and share storylines from over 20 years ago, including when Victor was evil, Bo and Hope got married in England, and when Kimberly Brady was accused of murder. Over the years, she especially got hooked on the great love stories of the '80s and '90s. In addition to covering DAYS, Gwen has written various articles for sites like Associated Content and Suite101.com.

• SOAPnet; I'm not familiar with this site. Is it reliable?
  • Answer:Soap Net is an airing Soap Opera network, and this source is indeed relibable. Just like Soapoperadigest.com, and NBC.com
    • Not really sure what you mean by network; on television? Is there a Wikipedia article you can point me to? Why is it reliable?
      • SOAPNet.
        • Ok, thanks. Not sure why I couldn't find that!--BelovedFreak 09:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Michael Fairman
  • Answer:He was a pioneer in online new media as creator and executive producer of SoapCity.com for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment. SoapCity.com. was the first site of its kind for the soap genre. It featured web casts, chats, event coverage, news and updates on all major network soaps operas. The site housed official show sites of “The Young and the Restless”, “Days of our Lives”, “As the World Turns” and “Guiding Light”. Michael has been a producer and writer for several soap oriented series and projects ranging from, E! Entertainment Television’s daily live soap-talk show, “Pure Soap” to SOAPnet’s “Soap Center”, to producer for over seven Daytime Emmy, Soap Digest , and Soap Update award shows, for Dick Clark Productions, ABC and Lifetime Television Networks.

• • Michael has also been a writer/producer in the on-air promotions department for ABC Daytime and SOAPnet, creating numerous spots for various soaps and image campaigns.

• sitcom boy
  • Answer:Craig Hamrick has written several books about TV trivia. The three most recent, The TV Tidbits Classic Television Trivia Quiz Book, Big Lou and Barnabas & Company, are all currently available on Amazon.com.
    • Ok, (why <big>?) Those books appear to be published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company, so that's not convinced me
      • This website is meant for the scan of the magazine cover.
• Poptower
• Days of Our Lives Fans Blog
  • Answer: Frederick Brown has watched Days since early 1970.
    • And that makes him reliable, how?
• raising-redheads.com
• jason47.com - appears to be a scan of an old magazine, but it's not clear where it's from, or when
  • Answer:The website is only used for that article scan, as I could not find it elsewhere. It is an interview with Suzanne Rogers from 1980.
    • The actual article should be cited with name of publication, date, title, author - do you have it in front of you to do that? because that's not all available on the scan. For a print resource, it's not necessary to have an online link, but you need to provide the relevant information so that a reader can go and find the source themselves and verify the info.
• soapoperafan.com blog/Matthew Purvis
  • Answer: A daily recap
    • Ok. reliable how?
• tvmegasite.net
  • Answer:

Management Credits

Owner / Founder Suzanne

Daytime Manager Gisele

Content Managers:

Daytime Michelle & Cheryl - (Days of Our Lives and Passions) Beth - (Port Charles)

Primetime Jacques - (Heroes and Lost)

Actors Minal (Scorpio Files) Mary Jane (Hunt Block) Annmarie (Peyton List and Mark Collier)

Our Other Credits pages:

Soap Update, Recap, and Transcript Writers

Other Volunteers!

• • • I'm not sure who those people are, if you could summarise I'd be grateful
• alicesfamilytree.com
  • Answer: Thats a family tree of the Horton family, the shows main core family.
    • It sure does, but how's it reliable?
• "The Days of our Lives: The True Story of One Family's Dream and the Untold History of Days of our Lives" - I don't even know what this is; is it a book?
  • Answer: Yes, it is a book written by executive producer Ken Corday which tells the history of the soap, and the history of his family.
    • Well, that sounds like it could be a great resource. The citation needs to have an author, publisher, date, ISBN number, and the title should be in italics
• Days of Our Lives Fan Club
  • Answer:History provided by longtime viewers, supported with references.
    • Long time viewers do not count as reliable sources just for being longtime viewers
• "imdb.tripod.com" - (not tripod) imdb is not a reliable source for plot details, and this link doesn't mention anything about her drinking anyway.
  • Answer: It's not about her drinking storyline, it's supposed to indicate the time that a character mentioned in the article was on the show.
    • Ok, you didn't get what I said, that it's not tripod... it's also IMDb, not IMBD. As for what it indicates, it comes after the following sentence: "This relationship takes its toll on Maggie, who begins to drink heavily." The citation has nothing to do with the sentence.
• Maria's Not Your Typical Days of Our Lives Page!
  • Answer: History answers from an online quiz.
    • Ok, but how is it reliable?
• DaytimeConfidential.com
  • Answer: Daytime Confidential is reliable, but it's the interview with Suzanne needed.
    • The interview is from TV Guide, why is that not cited?
• The Days of our Lives Pub
  • Answer:That was the original source for a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 June 2010
    • So it should be on the file page, not hanging off the end of a random sentence. It's not a reference.

Broad in coverage

It's good to have the information on the casting, but after 37 (?) years, surely there is more real-world information that could be included? How has the character been received by critics over the years? How has the character been analysed? What about the Emmy mentioned in the lead? What about the fact that's she's been described a legend and an icon? Why is this not mentioned after the lead? What about the two interruptions to her portrayal? Why did they come about? Done New information added.

Original research/neutrality

There are several statements that are not only unsourced, they seem to be original research For example:

• "It is clear from the very beginning that these two are meant to be together" Done
• "The news of Suzanne Rogers being cast as Maggie was a typical move." Done
• "Mickey is depicted as this smart tough lawyer, with Maggie being a weak farm girl. " Done
• "Maggie and Mickey were generally depicted as the most stable couple on the show..." Done
• "When Maggie is shockingly murdered ..." - "shockingly" doesn't sound very encyclopedic Done

Images

• All images seem to be appropriately tagged, at a glance, but I'm not sure how you can justify having five non-free images there. All of the ones outside of the infobox could be argued to be purely decorative. Done
• In the last section, the text is squeezed between an image and a quote box, making it very difficult to read. Done

General points

The article is not very well written, there are many errors in the prose, references are highly questionable, the article is mostly in-universe, there are too many non-free images, citations are not clear enough or consistent, there are several links to disambiguation pages and at least two dead external links. There are still more issues, for example with prose, that I haven't listed, but I really don't think that this article should stay as a GA. Contributors are invited to improve the article so that it can be kept. Otherwise, I will delist it. --BelovedFreak 01:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are still big problems here. A few of the points raised about the prose have been addressed, but some of the changes are unfortunately problematic. The things I mentioned were just some of the problems. What about the source issues mentioned above? Are these being addressed at all?--BelovedFreak 09:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should never have been passed in that state; turns out it was passed by the sockpuppet of the nominator (or vice versa): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez/Archive. The article is no where near GA, so I'm gong to delist it now.--BelovedFreak 07:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)