Talk:Billie Jenkins/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General

No copyvio detected
No dablinks
External links check out
Refer to her as either Billie or Billie Jenkins

Is this done? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: This is probably a stupid question, but I am not sure what you are referring to here? I have been following how other articles about fictional characters use names (introduce the character with the full name and then either use the first or last/family name when appropriate). I use Billie and the characters' first names as there is a lot of overlap with last/family name.

Stupid of me, I should've said surname. Use Billie or Jenkins consistently throughout. There is only one case, at the start of "Television". Call her Billy. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my fault. I apologize for not getting your comment right away so if anything I am the stupid one. I have changed it here and on the Christy Jenkins page. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and development

Say "the WB Television Network (the WB)" instead of "WB" at first mention

Done Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add "the series' protagonists" before "Alyssa Milano, Holly Marie Combs, and Rose McGowan"

I added the series' lead actors as I believe the phrase "the series' protagonists" makes it sounds like the actresses are the characters.

Then change the wording in the lead as well. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the lead is referring to the actual characters (Piper Halliwell, Phoeboe Halliwell, and Paige Matthews) with the actresses in parenthesis put directly after their character so that is a completely different context. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to apologize! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kern clarified that Billie was not created Kern has not been introduced in the main article

Done Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TVLine is linked twice

Done Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During the WB's merge with United Paramount Network (UPN) to form the CW When was that?

Done Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any wikilink for "projection"? You use Reality warping in Christy Jenkins

I wikilinked "projection" to reality warping as that is the closest comparison to Billie's powers. I can change it if you feel that it is inappropriate. Aoba47 (talk)

Characterization and powers

Pam Shae called the character "demanding" Just say "Shae"

Done Aoba47 (talk)

Appearances

Maybe introduce Helen Jenkins like other characters are in this section?

Done. I can't believe I missed that one. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

describes as "[a]n above-average white witch" describes whom?

Done. I apologize for this very silly mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

A writer from CurrentFilm.com What type of website is that exactly? Same for Eclipsemagazine.com

This one? I wish you introduced the website as it has no wiki article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any positive reviews?

A majority of the reviews I found ranged from mixed (at best) to very negative. I have included a positive review with the inclusion of the CurrentFilm.com source and several of the reviews are mixed where they either praise the character and criticize her storyline with Christy or vice versa. I am uncertain if I should put the character received "primarily negative" or "mixed" critical feedback. Which one do you think would best this section? Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: I have addressed your above comments. Thank you for your review. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this page. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, happy to promote. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Thank you for taking on all three of my articles for review. Your comments for this article were very help; I plan on c/e and revising this more and possibly put it up for FAC (I would love to get a character from this show as an FA). I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review is a great way to tidy up articles before FAC (especially if it's your first), gets you more editors of the same field and almost an FAC before the FAC. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]