Talk:Ferreira family

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ferreira family/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems encountered when checking against quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Good

   b (MoS):

   • Follow MoS sufficiently

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources OK

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Thorough

   b (focused):

   • Remains focussed

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:

   • Excellent - no problems with this - I am happy to list this as a Good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ Lenny

A quote in the reception section mentions the character of DJ Lenny. Do we think this refers to Lenny Wallace? I want to wikilink it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, I cant think of any other Lenny, though I dont find him similar to Ronny.GunGagdin^Moan 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't either. Perhaps get rid of the "was no more than an updated version of a previous character, DJ Lenny," part. What do you think? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's ok to leave, not like it's our opinion, and it isnt the only review of them anyway. But if you dont think it adds anything, then delete. Well done for GA btw :) GunGagdin^Moan 18:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just have a feeling the reviewer got the wrong character. Was Lenny Wallace a DJ? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

he was one of those float around characters who did whatever the storyline dictated, so it wouldnt surprise me. Matthew Rose was a DJ. Oh Lenny did have a pirate radio station, so perhaps he did do some DJaying. Matthew Rose did for definite. Maybe take it out as a fringe opinion (or whatever it's called), because I doubt it represents the view of the majority of reviewers, the Lenny/Ronny comparison.GunGagdin^Moan 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the comparison then. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FA?

I wonder if anything extra needs to be done to get this up to FA standard. Maybe it's already there! Should we try? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a couple of book mentions that you could use [1]. It's not that long, but I dont suppose it needs to be huge. Go for it! Only other thing you could consider is a peer review first, but you could be waiting a long time for that.GunGagdin^Moan 21:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks for those. I'll see if I can get anything from them tomorrow. I don't see the point in going for peer review. It seems to fit the FA criteria as it is, in my opinion. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything there that can be added, but I do feel the storylines section could do with a copyedit. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All the contractions need to be removed. Did Tariq used to be a drug dealer? Wasnt he the reason Kelly used drugs that time? I cant remember! 13:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Little adjustments B4 FA

• "Jordan told the Daily Mirror the Ferreiras were "the least successful characters I created — through no fault of their own." - Quote is unreferenced.
• remove contractions in storylines.GunGagdin^Moan 13:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreferenced because it's referenced in the main text of the article. Facts in the lead section don't require a reference as long as they are referenced later. The contractions are the main reason I said it needs copyediting. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it now, including colloquialisms. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The unreferenced bit I noticed is in the development section, probably the source has already been used and just requires a repeat.GunGagdin^Moan 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see it now. I wonder how that was missed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh also, I remember for the Pauline FA we got a complaint that we hadnt referenced quotes in the lead, so perhaps removed quoted text from the lead and just say they were critcised, which will remove the need for refs.GunGagdin^Moan 14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the lead would be right without the quotes as they help to accurately summarise the subject. If anything, I'd like to see the lead expanded. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

sources

• Nabil talks about his role as troublesome TariqGunGagdin^Moan 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Kareena

Say I had a mountain of development info on Kareena - where would that go?Rain the 1 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of development? –anemoneprojectors– 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess if it's only Kareena specific, it may warrant giving her a separate article? GunGagdin^Moan 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be able to fit in here. From the state of the articles previously, none of them were really notable other than as a family on the whole, which is why I made this article. Depends what it is, I was trying to avoid having to split any family members from this article. Be nice if it could fit in here. So yeah, what kind of development is it? :-) –anemoneprojectors– 13:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)