Talk:Bianca Jackson/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CountdownCrispy 12:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

This is my first Good Article review - given the size of the backlog, I felt it was time I helped out. I'm optimistic that I will be able to offer plenty of fair advice to improve the article, and provide a fair assessment of its quality. If you would like to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page.

Quickfail?

Absolutely not - a lot of work has obviously gone into the article. The initial impression is that it is referenced, neutral, and stable, and so I will be happy to proceed with a full review. This will commence as soon as I save this page. If you are a keen contributor to this article, you might like to add this review page to your watchlist.

Overview by CountdownCrispy

GA review (see here for criteria)

I'm inclined to fail this article as it will take more than 7 days to resolve the summary style issues discussed below. However, as this is my first GA review I will double-check my findings with a second opinion.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is not ideally structured and contains too many quotations; the article's lead needs expansion: please see WP:LEAD.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Almost there, in spite of the failings suggested above. Need to fix the unreferenced 2008— section and possibly alter some weak sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Most things covered, though improved prose will make this clearer. Surely there are more popular culture references though?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
A fair balance of praise and criticism.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Occasional IP vandalism, but actually it's remarkably stable for a smart Alec-prone character in a thrice-weekly television drama.
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):
Fair use rationales? Yes. Fair use, in truth? I don't believe so.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Whilst the prose issues could be resolved whilst on hold, I'm not convinced that the length issue could be resolved within a week.~~ After seeking a second opinion, I'll put the article on hold and check back in a week or so. It's been suggested that you read WP:FANCRUFT to see how much (if any) is appropriate, as this may help you simmer down the length of the article. Good luck.

Detailed comments from CountdownCrispy

Section 1: "It is reasonably well written"

The section headings neatly divide the article, though I'm not sure "Rickaaaaaaay!" is an appropriate heading - it would be difficult to remember how many As are present when linking, if nothing else! Perhaps "Relationship with Ricky Butcher" would be more appropriate?
Prose suffers because it is not optimally structured. The lead, for instance, is not chronological: it talks about Bianca from the 1990s, moves through to the 2000s, then to the present day, and then returns to the 1990s to discuss the character when she was first introduced. The lead also requires expansion to have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD.
Furthermore, I don't feel that prose is focussed enough on Bianca as a character. For example, whilst the first two sentences of the "Background" section are directly relevant to Bianca, they could be applied to any number of characters from that era, and the first sentence could be applied to the whole show. I appreciate the information which is being conveyed, but don't believe it is being conveyed in the best way for a character-based article.
The article feels very quotation heavy, with individual words such as "historic", "accident" and "rooted" in quotation marks when they would be best served integrated into the sentences. I also personally feel there are too many references to particular publications and journalists. Sentences such as...

Hester Lacey of The Independent has described Palmer's casting as an "accident", as she did not formally audition for the role.

...would convey the same information without the publication being mentioned. Such information would be better included as a footnote, and would make the article as a whole pithier.

Where quotations are appropriate, they must be directly cited, like "quotation"<footnote> if they are in the middle of a sentence, even if the sentence has a citation at the end of the sentence. See WP:CITE#When quoting someone. The sentence...

In 1996, Palmer described Bianca as someone who deserves "a good slap"

...fails in this respect, and this should be checked throughout. Chris Barker's research is also affected by the above.

Some unnecessarily tabloid-esque information: we know that Patsy Palmer is pregnant, so do we need to be told that "...she was already showing a baby bump"? If nothing else, such details will grow outdated.
The article is very long. To quote the automated peer reviewer: "Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style."

Section 2: "It is factually accurate and verifiable."

Pretty good - I followed several links and found that the references backed up the article. Cite templates are used correctly. This said:

The sentence, "Palmer's portrayal of Bianca earned her a nomination for "Best Actress" at the 1998 Royal Television Society Awards" is referenced by a list from the 1997 Awards. This needs correction. (I cannot be bold as I do not know if this is a simple typo, or whether she was nominated in both years.) I'm happy to give this error the benefit of the doubt, though you should double check for similar errors.
- Done it was 1997. Anemone Projectors 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the Walford Gazette is the most reliable source available - it went down a little earlier whilst I was reviewing (though it has since returned), and surely there will be references in the mainstream media/on the BBC EastEnders website to provide equivalent information.
The entire 2008— section is unreferenced. This needs fixing, as it could well constitute original research.

Section 3: "It is broad in its coverage."

Although on the whole I was not left wanting, the popular culture section seems surprisingly short for such a prominent character. Were there impressions/sketches on 2DTV, Alistair McGowan and the like?
- Apparently not, at least I can find no reference to anything else. Anemone Projectors 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Secret Diary "...has the potential to make No.1 in the best-sellers list." How did it sell, in fact? Try and find some cold hard numbers rather than an unnamed sourced from the Sunday Mirror.
- I cannot find any references that say how well the book sold, though Tiffany's Secret Diary was described as a best-seller here and Bianca's Secret Diary is also mentioned, so I would guess it wasn't a best-seller, but that's original research. Anemone Projectors 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improving the prose might make clearer any gaps in the articles coverage, though on the whole I was reasonably satisfied.

Section 6: "It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate."

With the possible exception of the wedding image, I'm not convinced that any of the images really qualify for fair use. They illustrate a character played by an actress and, whilst perhaps one additional fair use image of her in character and costume would be appropriate for the infobox, on the whole I don't believe the images convey anything that would not be equally well shown through free images of Patsy Palmer, Sid Owen, Michael French and so on.
- I have removed two of the images. But a photo of Patsy Palmer at a funeral would not be appropriate as it is not a photo of the character and is in no way representitive of the character. There was even a very long IFD about another fictional character where one person believed it should be deleted as it could be replaced with a free image of the actor, but consensus was that a picture of an actor is not a picture of a fictional character. I believe the image of Bianca from the 1990s is also appropriate. Anemone Projectors 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Personally, I believe that whilst the prose could possibly be rewritten to a higher standard within a week, the potential move to multiple articles could not reach consensus and be implemented within that timescale. That said, I will refer my findings to another reviewer and ask them to see if they agree with my findings. Either way, I hope the above helps - the very best of luck with improving the article.

A week has passed and, whilst I accept the validity of some of the responses to my criticisms, I don't feel enough work has been done to this article to raise it to GA standard. I wish you luck editing it and may success come your way in a future nomination, but for now I am going to fail this GA review. CountdownCrispy 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have asked nobody to renominate this until issues have been resolved, as the issues from the first GAR hadn't even been resolved when the nominator nominated it a second time. But I completely disagree that because it is long it must be fancruft - that is the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard. Anemone Projectors 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, the word 'fancruft' only entered the equation after a review by another editor of what was my first GA review. Whatever the reason for the article being so large, it's certainly a clear area for improvement. :-) CountdownCrispy 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I saw that on your talk page. Anyway, thanks for the review. Anemone Projectors 18:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious? Asking for plots to be sourced, making out the article is too long? Fancruft? I'm sure the article would be twice as big if we were going to add all the pointless info on Bianca out there... You didn't even let the nominator know, so thankyou.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get ratty with me. I was trying to help! Yes, this article too darned long; if you click edit you'll see the following message:

"Warning: This page is 62 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb."

In short, this article is about twice as long as it should be. I've offered friendly advice on this page as to how to go about reducing its length, but whether or not you want to take that advice is up to you. If you feel you weren't given enough notice to complete the work that needed doing, try seeking a reassessment. The fact of the matter is that I reviewed this a week ago, had a review of the review, received replies to my review, and only five edits have occurred since. If you're that dedicated to this article, I would have hoped you'd have checked up on it in the last week, and/or had it on your watchlist. Apologies for telling you the truth, and not what you wanted to hear. CountdownCrispy 21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]