Wikipedia:Peer review/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey/archive1

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I listed this because it has been rejected as a good article status, and I need some help on how it can get to featured article. Candyo32 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not follow soap operas and have never seen this show, so in some ways that makes me an ideal reviewer (I hope). Here are some suggestions for improvement:

I would follow the GA review comments and make sure that all of them have been addressed. I would also consider going through GA on the way to FA - my experience is that FA is about as far beyond GA as GA is beyond stub.
A model article is often helpful to follow for ideas and style. Pauline Fowler a character on East Enders, is the only FA for the Soap Operas WikiProject
The guideline for all of this should be to keep an "out of universe perspective" when writing this - see WP:IN-U
Some of the references seem possibly problematic, especially for FAC. Does About.com meet WP:RS? How about TVmegasite.net or bellaonline.com?
I would not start the body of the article with a quote from a fictional character for the "Original couple concept" section. I would also make sure to provide context for the reader - Babe is a new character, but we get no back story on J.R.
Make sure to cite everything
This article is about the two characters and their relationship, so it seems odd to start the Storyline section skipping their first year Following a complicated year together for characters J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey,...
The WP:MOS says to avoid sandwiching text between images.
Six fair use images seems a bit much. See WP:FAIR USE. Did you know the cake (arguably fair use image seven as it has a photo of the two on the cake) is up for deletion on Commons?
I would refer to the magazine by name (Celebrity Living) in the Lead and the section header.
The two long quotations seem too long, again this is a fair use issue.
Since the GA review already referred to the need for a copyedit and the danger of Original Research, I will not go into detail on that here, but I agree those are things to watch out for.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22's comments: Ruhrfisch, has made some good suggestions for improving this article:

Let me start off my saying, yes, About.com is a reliable source, especially for sourcing plot or quotes of fictional characters. Additionally, that site is used for sourcing various matters on Wikipedia. As for TVmegasite.net, it is not really a source that Wikipedia would like, but it is being used for non-controversial matters...such as quotes from the characters. If it is really better thought that that reference should not be used, then I will not use it.
Babe's not that new of a character, and it is actually that we do get backstory on J.R. in the Couple creation section. What we don't have is too much backstory on Babe in that section, except for how she was introduced. What needs to happen there is that we need more in-depth backstory on both characters in that section and more couple creation information. The thing is...I'm not sure how much more couple creation information is out there about them. I would have added it long ago if I had found it.
The reason that the Storyline section starts off a year after J.R. and Babe got together is because both of their individual articles cover their first year thoroughly, especially Babe's, and it is redundant to have it in this article as well, when we can just link to that first year (as I've done). It also saves Storyline room.
I don't feel that there are too many fair-use images. Wikipedians sometimes forget that Wikipedia's policy does not go on how many fair-use images are used but rather if how many being used are needed -- if they really enhance or add to the article. I feel that all of the fair-use images in this article enhance its readability and actually add to the article. There were more images than that before, which was a little overboard, thus I got rid of them. But the remaining ones seem fair. If getting rid of two of them is thought to better this article, then I will be open to that, of course...and will most likely do that. And, yes, I know that the cake image is up for deletion, but I'm hoping that it survives because the mage really is free and permission has been granted to use it from its authors. If it is deleted from Commons, then I will see how else to get it back.

Those are main comments (most likely my only comments to be made in this peer review). The GA reviewer and Ruhrfisch covered everything else, and I also replied on the talk page of this article in response to the GA review. When I get a good chance to, I will further improve this article. I was not looking to get this article to GA because, well, I did not feel that it would be able to get to GA given the lack of coverage this couple has gotten as compared to Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone. But now that this article has been GA reviewed, and there seems that there might be a chance for it to make GA, then I may focus on that at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]