Talk:Jo Harvelle/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be reviewing this article. It's funny, I've never seen this show, but this is my second GA review for it! lol. Not a bad little article! Below are my concerns, and they won't be hard to address. Please address each one line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Well, it's usually best to have the reviewer be someone not familiar with the subject, as it helps point out flaws. Anyways, I'll try and start the revisions later today. Unfortunately, the show didn't become as news-heavy as it is now until the fourth season, so it will be hard to find news sources on the episodes. Ωphois 16:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead:

• There are two elements I'd like to see added to this lead: 1) The fact that she was created by series creator Eric Kripke, and 2) the fact that Kripke felt the conception of the character was flawed from the beginning. You can weave the second item into what's already there about the fact that she went from love interest to a sister-figure...
  • I don't know if she was created by Kripke.
  • Where in the article does it say that he felt she was flawed form beginning? Ωphois 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, it doesn't say it yet, lol. See my third comment under Development. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lead. Check if you're okay with it. Ωphois 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I made a few minor changes. The info is the same, but I added an attribution to the quote (which is needed, as per WP:QUOTE) and reworked the order of some things. Let me know if that works for you. Also, you're saying you don't know for sure that Kripke created the Jo Harvelle character? If that's the case, please remove him as the "Creator" under the infobox. If that's not the case, please add it to the lead... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed him from the infobox. Ωphois 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot:

• Careful not to mix your tenses; there were a few examples of past tense AND present tense in this plot summary. I think I've fixed them all.
• "...when they come looking for her mother Ellen at the Harvelle Roadhouse—a saloon frequented by hunters—after their father, John Winchester, dies." I'm not familiar with this show, so I was a bit confused by whether Ellen was Jo's mother or Sam and Deans, and also whey they would be looking for her mother after Sam and Dean's father died? Alsom why were they looking for Ellen in the first place? Could you reword this sentence to be more clear? Maybe break it into two sentences so there aren't so many clauses?
  • Changed to "Jo Harvelle first meets Sam and Dean Winchester in the second season episode "Everybody Loves a Clown". The brothers come looking for her mother Ellen at the Harvelle Roadhouse—a saloon frequented by hunters—after finding a voicemail from her on the phone of their deceased father." Ωphois 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "...though he states that he too has feelings for her, he won't act on them." Any particular reason why not?
  • I'm not exactly sure, but he says "wrong place, wrong time". So may have been because his father had recently died. I think he also said that he was afraid of her mother, but may have been a joke. Ωphois 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, best not to speculate then and risk violating WP:OR. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, in one of the Supernatural magazines that I just got, it says that he at first didn't want to be with her because he was depressed over his father's death. I'll add it in soon. Ωphois 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• "...though ends up being saved by them." Can you briefly mention here how she ends up becoming endangered? In other words, what they have to save her from?
  • Changed to: "though ends up being saved by them from a vengeful spirit." Ωphois 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I tweaked it a slight bit more, but I think it's fine now. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "...reacquiring the Colt—a mystical gun rumored to be capable of killing anything—and planning to kill Lucifer." Who reacquires the Colt, exactly? Jo and Ellen? Or Jo, Ellen and the brothers?
  • Changed to: "Jo and Ellen once again team up with the Winchesters in "Abandon All Hope...", helping them to reacquire the Colt - a mystical gun rumored to be capable of killing anything - in order to kill Lucifer." Ωphois 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Can you site the last paragraph in this section? Even if it's just one citation for the "Abandon All Hope..." episode...
  • Done. Ωphois 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm OK with the sources for this section being the television episodes themselves, especially for a GA, but if you can find a few outside sources you could sprinkle in here that would be good too. Even if you just use a book or news article to cite a few individual facts that are already in here. It's not necessary if you can't, but I think it would make the article appear a bit stronger...
  • Facts like what? Ωphois 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Like, for example, if the Nicholas Knight book mentions that Jo and Ellen helped the brothers in "Good God, Y'All", or that Ellen left a message on their dad's voicemail in "Everybody Loves a Clown", you could drop a citation in at the end of those sentence. You wouldn't have to add anything more, just beef up what you have already with some additional citations. Again, this isn't going to be hold up the GAN if you can't do it, I just think it would make the section stronger in case anybody raised an objection that it was all cited by primary sources... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I can, but the book doesn't go into as much detail on some of the plot stuff, so I think it would look weird.. Ωphois 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I was really just looking for you to drop a few citations in there to establish that you don't have to depend entirely on primary sources for the plot summary. If you don't feel comfortable doing it, I won't fail the GAN for it. On the other hand, if you can drop a few in, that'd be great. It's up to you... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Done. Ωphois 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Characterization:

• Episode sources are less acceptable here than they are in the Plot section. You have enough reliable secondary sources throughout the article that I think it satisfied WP:N, but I'd still rather see some of those outside sources used here in place of the episode cites if possible. If you can't replace them, I won't fail the article or anything, but can you look through your sources and see if you can try it?
  • Her college life and connection to her father aren't really mentioned in third-party sources. Ωphois 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright. If this were a FAC review, they'd probably have to be dropped from the article, but I don't think that's necessary for the GAN... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "While at one point she had attempted to go to college, she eventually dropped out..." I take it then that this means she actually attended college at one point, not simply attempted to do so? Could you change the sentence a bit to reflect that?
  • Changed to: "While at one point she attended college, she eventually dropped out" Ωphois 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "She is also "enthusiastic" and very "girl-next-door in her approach" to hunting the supernatural." This is still Kripke's description of her, right? If you use quotes or partial quotes, you have to identify the source in the sentence itself. Could you change "She is also..." to "Kripke also described her as..."?
  • The sentences before and after both mention Kripke. I think if I did this, it would be repetitive: Kripke said, Kripke also said, Kripke felt. If you still want it changed, I can do so. Ωphois 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I just added "He also described her as..." so the name isn't used in three consecutive sentences...
• "..."[harder] and [tougher]". I'm confused by this. Why use a quote box at all if you're replacing everything in it with bracketed words? lol. Did he or did he not say these things? Could you just drop the quote alotgether and change it to "which Kripke felt made her harder and tougher."
  • Changed to original quote of "harden and toughen". Ωphois 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, now it doesn't make grammatical sense. I changed it back to harder and tougher, but dropped the quotes. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Development:

• "To accomplish this, Tal made use of her experience in the Israeli army, stating..." Whoa, wait, WHAT?! lol. This is a pretty interesting fact here, but it's sort of droped in from out of nowhere. Can you add just a little bit of info about what she did in the Israeli army, and/or how long she was there?
  • Lol. Well, the only thing I can find in a RS is that she served for two years. Ωphois 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I incorporated the two years thing into the sentence. Please check it to make sure you're OK with it. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting... the RS I found for the "two years" also has that the character was originally named Alex. I had known this, but never had a RS for it. I'll add it to the article. Ωphois 10:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you have any suggestions on how to integrate it? Ωphois 10:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
        • You mean the name thing? I guess you could just drop it right into the beginning of either of the two paragraphs in "Development" as its own new sentence. You could certainly try it, in any case, and we'll change it if it doesn't work... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 12:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Changed to: "Due to the father-son dynamics of the hunting world depicted in the series' first season with the Winchesters, the writers decided to explore a mother-daughter relationship. This resulted in the introduction of Jo—originally named Alex—and her mother Ellen." Ωphois 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I think I'd rather it be it's own sentence than dropped in with em dashes like that. Most of the time, I think shoving those clauses in the middle of sentence messes up the flow. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Changed to: "This resulted in the introduction of Jo and her mother Ellen. The character of Jo was initially named Alex, but this was later changed."
              • However, another option is: "This resulted in the introduction of Alex and her mother Ellen; Alex would eventually be renamed 'Jo'." Ωphois 16:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
              • I changed it to a variation of the last option. Let me know if that works for you, or feel free to further tweak it yourself... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Yeah, that's good. BTW, I added in a sentence about Tal's expectation for the character. Ωphois 19:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • Looks good. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Because of those factors, the character was eventually phased out in the season." Which season are we talking about, the second season? If so, could you change this to "Because of those factors, the character was eventually phased out of the second season altogether."
  • Done. Ωphois 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• This source indicates that Eric Krikpe was starting to have doubts that he conceived the character in the correct way even before the first episode aired, which is interesting. Could you add that here?
  • Done. Ωphois 12:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception:

• This IGN source that you use mentions that the "No Exit" interview uses Jo in a bit of a cliché way (the kidnap victim), even though it ultimately works to the advantage of the storyline. Do you think this is worth adding to this section?
  • I see this as kinda more of an aspect of the episode rather than of the character. Ωphois 16:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• I was hoping you could expand a bit on the Fan reaction section here. A few suggestions would be to use the quote from Jensen Ackles "The audience [reaction] was, 'No, no, we just want this to be about the boys.'" from this source
  • Changed to: "Fan reaction to the character was generally negative. Jensen Ackles, who portrays Dean, summed up the response as, "No, no, we just want this to be about the boys.""
• This section lacks anything about reception to Alona Tal's performance as Jo. Can you add it a bit? This source calls her a "terrific actress" and said she did "valiantly and beautifully", which is a start, even though it's coming from Kripke. Can you find anything else on this?
  • I'll add Kripke's comments in. Already in the article is Charles' statement, "Tal did step things up and kinda won me over". IGN reviews also mention her chemistry with Ackles. I don't think there's more RS reviews out there, though. Ωphois 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to: "Though Kripke found Tal to be a "terrific actress" that "did valiantly and beautifully with the part [they] gave her",[9] he feels that the mistake was introducing her as a love interest, and came to believe that women should only be introduced into the series as antagonists." Ωphois 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I also found another review commenting on her performance, and added it in. Ωphois 12:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Great! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 12:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In general:

• Can you think of any other pictures or quote boxes to further illustrate this article?
  • Any luck on finding some quotes for possible quote boxes? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I made one of the quotes in Development into a quotebox. Ωphois 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll place this on hold until the concerns can be addressed. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nice job addressing the items so far! I'm sure the rest will go very quickly... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Congrats, that's a pass! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)