Talk:Levi Canning/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 21:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'd be happy to handle this review; expect finished comments in about a week. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks! This whole process is new to me, so thank you for taking it on board! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay. Before we get into the meat and potatoes – spot checks and prose – I think I see a few big overarching issues that need to be righted before GA status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

To start, there's just waaay too many quotes. WP:OVERQUOTE is probably something to pay attention to. I'd also watch for duplicate referencing; if you have the same cite for two sentences, you can just use the second cite for both.

Sourcing

A lot of the sources I'm seeing are used far more than their reliability would suggest; Metro really shouldn't be used, and using Digital Spy should be a moment to pause and consider WP:DUE. I'm seeing a looooot of sourcing to those two, and it's probably what causes the length issue I'm about to get into.

Length

Lastly, the article gets into way more detail than is probably necessary. For reference, I've written a fictional character FA myself, and I find that the best way to deal with character storylines is to really not go into more detail than secondary sources are willing to say in their own voice (not quoting producers). Finally, for a character that only appeared for two years, 1345 words of unsourced prose on storylines is probably more than a reader needs.

Discussion

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you very much for reviewing the article and thank you for the feedback. I've gone ahead and removed the storylines section per your advice (I've also been under pressure to do this before by other editors whose recent articles have been "modernised" to exclude this section). As for the sourcing, when I made this article, I tried really hard to find alternative sources, but with me not having access to magazines like TV Week or Inside Soap, it was really hard for me. A lot of other soap opera characters' articles (or Neighbours characters' at least) mainly use TV Week/Inside Soap and Digital Spy e.g. Nicolette Stone, Hendrix Greyson or Roxy Willis. So without access to magazines, I'm not really sure how I'd be able to fix this issue sadly. As for the layout, I will try to cut down on duplicate referencing where I can. And now I've just realised I've covered all three of your points in the opposite order from what you wrote them in... - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an: I'm afraid I'd have to insist that the sourcing isn't quite up to snuff at the moment. A lot of the Digital Spy coverage is basically just WP:PRIMARY – it looks like someone watched a TV show and wrote down what happened in it – that's useful to an extent, like if you need to fill a large gap, but the extent to which its utilized here to capture every detail evokes exactly the kind of pitfall WP:RSP#Digital Spy's due weight advisory was meant to address.

The coverage also doesn't actually give you much worth noting, either – I didn't get all of the coverage of C. J. Cregg's time on The West Wing that I wanted, for example, but all of the coverage I did get was well-thought-out film criticism from academics and journalists who had something new to say about the content, and that helped me keep the article firmly fixed on an out-of-universe viewpoint. The sourcing here, on the other hand, tends to just uncritically repeat the twists and turns on the show without really stopping to criticize or even analyze at all – that leads to a lot of overemphasis on plot points without informing the reader about the role Levi serves on the show, his public perception, or his broader impact. All in all, the sourcing seems to place the article a little far from meeting the broadness and due weight requirements. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any way around it, so I suppose you will have to fail it for Good Article status. There is really no way I can solve this issue personally, since the sources that other Neighbours articles use I don't have access to. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an: All righty, I guess that's what we'll do for now. My apologies on that, I know it was your first GAN :) fictional characters have some dicey pitfalls most other content fields don't come up against. Best of luck on your next one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.