Talk:Darren Osborne/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I've reviewed soap opera articles before, so I look forward to learning more about British soaps. Christine (talk) 19:00, 29 December 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 forlead,layout, word choice, fiction, andlists):

   I see from the previous GAN in November that one of the major issues that prevented it from passing was prose. I haven't done a history check, but it seems that very little has changed in this area. The first reviewer stated that the prose was choppy, and it still isI recommend that you take it to a copyeditor before considering bringing it back to GAN. It's the one thing that will prevent it from moving forward, and until it's addressed, I can't pass it.

   For example, right away, in the lead, there are noun-verb agreement issues: Darren was reintroduced to the serial in 1999 having been recast, now played by Ashley Taylor Dawson -should be Darren was reintroduced to the serial in 1999 after the role was recast with current performer Ashley Taylor Dawson. Also, the last two sentences in this paragraph are choppy. You also depend too much on quotations, and could paraphrase more. I could go on, but I've never thought that GAN was the place to go through an article like it seems to be in FAC.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   This seems to have been improved since the last review. I've always been impressed with the amount of sources in the British press about their soaps, something we in America don't enjoy. That means that the potential to improve articles about British soaps is great. There is still room for improvement, though. I looked at just a few refs, but noticed that Ref6 is broken. Please makes sure that you go through the refs again. Also, you use several chat transcripts. I'm not sure about their reliability, but I've allowed it in other reviews about TV shows.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think that if you get this article copyedited, it'd be more focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems good.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   As before, 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 havefair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

   This article seems to suffer from the same malady of many of the media-focused articles that I edit: an unavailability of free images. One trick I've learned is to use quoteboxes, which you do, but the one in the "Reception" section is way too long.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll hold the nomination until it's copyedited. If there's not a good faith attempt to do so, I can't pass it. Christine (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review i'll begin working on the points soon. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which ref is broken? Ref 6 is working. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's working now. Christine (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Christine in response to your concern about the final paragraph of "Character creation and casting" crossing into fansite information - I removed Dawson's pondering over which other character he would like to play in the series. I think the remainder could be used, it highlights that the character has longevity - is that okay now? I could give it a bit of a jiggle to tighten it, if not..Rain the 1 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, I like what you've done. Christine (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)