Talk:Britt Westbourne

Britt Westbourne was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 13, 2013, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Britt Westbourne appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that actress Kelly Thiebaud, known for her role as the antagonistic Britt Westbourne on General Hospital, previously appeared in music videos for French disc jockey David Guetta?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Britt Westbourne.

Wikipedia

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Discussion

Here's the link to a relevant discussion I started on another page.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BrickHouse337 (talk · contribs) 21:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm short on time to do this review now—I will hopefully get to it later on tonight, and if not, tomorrow. --Brick House 337 21:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I'm noticing a lot of issues with grammar. Has the page been thoroughly copy-edited?
The entire first paragraph needs rewording. "Originated" isn't a good word to use unless the character has been portrayed by multiple actors, which she has not.
Second paragraph of lead seems okay.
"Actress Kelly Thiebaud, who is relatively new to the soap opera genre". Not a good phrase to use. Probably best to just remove the "who is relatively new to the soap opera genre" part completely.
The second paragraph of the casting section reads like a biography. "She was shocked, because she felt that she wasn't doing well in the role due to nerves, in addition to the fast-paced nature of the genre". Where did she state this? In an interview? If so, with whom?
Need to keep things in historical perspective. "On February 4, 2013" --> "In February 2013,"
No need to include "thigh bone" in brackets, readers can simply click on the femur link.
Where was it explained that the character is complex? Did the writers design her this way? If so, explain in more detail.
Too much of a plot summary in the final paragraph of character development; needs rewording.
Remove all of the sources from storylines; watching the series has been established as a good enough source.
There are multiple grammar issues in reception, including comma placement and such.
The article is only illustrated by one image; a screenshot of the character. Are there any free images of actors or anyone involved with the series who has an image appropriate for use in this article?
Overall, in its current state, this article does not meet the GA criteria. However, I am not yet failing the article; after the concerns above have been addressed as much as possible, I will return to pass/fail the article. Cheers, --Brick House 337 04:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of these point, though there are a few things. I haven't removed the sources from storylines. They aren't needed, but the guideline style at WP:SOAPS doesn't say not to use them. They only make the article more verifiable. It was never discussed that we shouldn't have them in, only that they weren't necessary. But considering there were appropriate sources, I thought why not. But if you really think they aren't appropriate, then I'll remove them. About the grammar, I was meaning to do this yesterday, but I've just placed a request with the copy editor's guild so that it can be thoroughly copy edited. In regards to the image, I searched for appropriate free images before hand at Wikimedia Commons and found nothing. I was thinking of using a non-free image in character development. By the way, I was wondering if you could go more in detail about the grammar issues in reception so that I could fix them up? Thank you so much for reviewing this article :) Ar re 04:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the storyline sources, some of them are from Soapcentral and She Knows Soaps. Haven't these sources only been deemed usable for news purposes, not storyline and character information? And I really don't see them as necessary in articles like this anyway. In regards to the grammar issues in reception, there is one major thing that seems to be done throughout the entire article. When posting a quote from a writer or actor, it reads, for example: "Deep down, she just wants to make her mother happy, and is hurt that not even getting pregnant made Patrick like her". The period does not go after the closed quotation mark in a long quote like this. It should be "Deep down, she just wants to make her mother happy, and is hurt that not even getting pregnant made Patrick like her." Do you see the difference? And the article really does need a general copy-edit. --Brick House 337 15:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've placed a review so eventually it will be copy-edited. Fixed the quotation issues (for the entire article), but only for the quotes that I used full sentences for. I removed the Soapcentral sources, because you're right, we generally don't use them for storyline/character-related content, just for real-world information. But She Knows Soaps is reliable, it's professional, for anything soap-related. I don't see issues in having both the show itself, and a reliable source supporting the storyline section. Ar re 01:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article one last look-over, and I regret to inform you that it still doesn't meet the GA criteria, so I'm going to have to fail the article. It needs a bit more work, and the character is still semi-new, so more information on her will develop over time. I'd be happy to review the article again once more work has been put into it. Sorry. Fail. --Brick House 337 04:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one reason I came to read this article is not even in it! What I want to know is where the character got the last name of Westbourne. There is no mention of a marriage and it is neither the last name of her father nor her mother on GH? 69.126.12.200 (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Britt Westbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]