Talk:Martha MacKenzie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fences&Windows 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written?

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

It's fairly clear. There are some grammar issues and I need to check it in detail against the MOS and MOS for fiction; I'll do a copy-edit. Fences&Windows 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is really awkward, but I'm not sure how to reword it: "The story line progresses Martha into a downward spiral and being manipulated into doing bad deeds by new boyfriend Cam." Something like "Martha begins a new relationship with Cam and progresses into a downward spiral as he manipulates her"? Fences&Windows 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the first sentence in the lead now reads as "Martha was a fictional character in Home and Away". However, it should read "Martha is a fictional character from Home and Away". Just because she has left, doesn't mean she stops being a fictional character from the show. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that in addition to this, a copyedit made earlier.. has made another paragraph suggest that Martha left, when in reality she hadn't, more so, she was still filming.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections made.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research.

There's a broken link, http://holysoap.five.tv/homeandaway/cast/martha-mackenzie-455, broken because she has left the show. The link isn't on the Internet Archive. It's only an external link, so I've simply removed it. Fences&Windows 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we archived this link ourselves Junegloom?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's used as a reference. Good planning. Fences&Windows 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a video interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkmUC8eCuac, which needs replacing with a non-copyvio link. This copy on YouTube isn't on an authorized channel for Yahoo. Fences&Windows 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only one around I think, I searched a lot for the original.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it either. Fences&Windows 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the old home and away website, which was still hosted by Yahoo7. .. but they deleted the old layout and content and started again with a new look... so it's gone. Doesn't the video act as a archive? It's possible to archive video, so who do you do that?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any leeway on this. WP:ELNEVER says that "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." Can we find other sources to verify the material on the relationship between Martha and Jack? Fences&Windows 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really as most are quotes exclusive to this video. Why is there the option of archiving the video content on wikipedia then, you can add an archive link containing the file type, why's it there?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage?

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The backstory is missing details of the story of Roo's pregnancy with Martha, and her decision to have her adopted. Martha appeared as a baby in season 1, episodes 177 and 182. I can find episode summaries on "Back to the Bay", but I am unsure on the reliability:[1][2]. They also have a character summary that might be OK to use as an external link? [3] Fences&Windows 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backtothebay is just a fansite, I know that they were pretty shoddy with factual info and posting rumours until recent when they get the odd exclusive peice of info.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Can we find a better source to fill in the details of the back story? Fences&Windows 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a news article with a brief interview with Gordon and some details on the character from the Sunday Herald Sun that could be used: [4] Fences&Windows 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this source has already been covered in the downward spiral and characterisation sections..RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more possible sources, some could be used to verify plot points in the storyline summary:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Fences&Windows 18:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was a requirement to source storylines?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, though WP:SOAP says "The article should not be used for a collection of storyline trivia about the character. As a rule of thumb, only those events which were significant enough to have been written about in third-party sources should be included." How do we know if the plot points are significant if they aren't verified? Besides, using sources allows the reader to check up on plot details without having to view the original episodes. And using sources helps improve plot summaries by focussing them and making sure that they are accurate. Fences&Windows 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they want to check plot details out I'd advice them to visit the fansites etc... It does say that in the WP for soap opera, but this article is more than a collection of plot details. I'll add them though. Junegloom, can you help me with it?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, sorry about that. Are the storylines considered a primary source? WP:PASI says "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source". Or am I barking up the wrong tree there? I just ask, because a ref for the date of the character's first appearance is proving tricky to find. If I cite the episode, is that okay? Adding secondary sources to the storylines should (hopefully) be easy to do. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About that too, I've never come across anyone wnating to prove the date the episode aired for a character. I thought the fiction itself comes back into play. All these guidelines we have, we have played by, then there are conflicting ones being dragged up.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you've asked for these citations for the lead, where we don't place references.. There is a claim that a sentance is not covered in the source provided, but it is, it's just reworded into prose, which is encouraged so there aren't as many blocks of stacking quotes, because there are a few. You also want to know when Martha returned filming behind the scenes, we don't know that. Plus you're asking for a citation for Jack and Martha's backstory, the refs elsewhere beyond that line basically prove it.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs added to the lead..

Done - Requests for changes in this section have all been carried out.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral?

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable?

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Seems relatively stable, there have been some edits since the nomination in July but nothing that introduced major changes or disputes. Fences&Windows 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated?

if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

As described at Wikipedia:Guide_for_nominating_good_articles#Images, fair use images should not be more than 300px wide or high. File:Martha MacKenzie Dancer.jpg is 345px high; is there a reason for this? Also, the WP:NFCC of "Contextual significance" is that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Please explain how a picture of Martha pole dancing fulfils this. Fences&Windows 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Martha MacKenzie.jpg seems to meet the WP:NFCC.
This might be a tough call, but is there a picture of Burcin Kapkin as Martha? If so, there would be a strong fair use justification for adding it.
Have you considered using File:Jodi Gordon.jpg, a shot of the actress during a break in filming? Fences&Windows 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for taking this article on! This is a joint nomination, but my name got removed from the GAN list. :( Lol. In regards to the image of the character pole dancing, WP:SOAPS says that images used to "illustrate only notable elements discussed in the article, such as characters/relationships, storylines, or real-world coverage on magazine or book covers" can be used, but if it fails WP:NFCC (which is probably the more important guideline), then it can go. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the image does fail that criterion, just that I'd like to see a solid justification. Thanks for the link to WP:SOAPS! Fences&Windows 16:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it holds it's own if the pixel size is reduced, it should be lower resolution, I can sort that. It's her storyline that was covered the most, the scene itself recieved media attention, a fact that has been cited with a source.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 16:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the image, now under 300 px in height.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 17:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another issue with that image: you state it was "Personally acquired, taken from an episode of the named programme" (I guess as a screengrab), but that precise image appeared in The Sun in 2007:[15] and a crop also appeared in various Australian newspapers, e.g. [16]. What is the actual source of the image? Fences&Windows 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it's the old rationale for the original, I realised I uploaded a image from the wrong pole dance scene, this one was the one that got the complaint. That picture itself is a essentially a screengrab... One of the refs, whatonTV have the video of it in the interview. So what do you want done now?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for File:Martha MacKenzie Dancer.jpg needs updating, the image wasn't "personally acquired". Otherwise it is fine. Fences&Windows 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Requests for changes in this section have all been carried out.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Sorry I've not finished this yet, I've been really busy. I've done some more copy edits, and I will get to this asap. Fences&Windows 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay aslong as we know, I do look foward to it's completion though.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been distracted by a rival soap, but now it's on a two week break, I look forward to getting this finished. I've managed to find and add a few refs to the storylines section. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been another two weeks now and nothing from the reviewer.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fences' note, if he doesn't wrap this up by weekend's end, I'll take over and finish this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Wizardman for offering to take the review through it's final stages.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Upon reading this article, I found no further issues, so I'll pass it as a GA. One thing does bug me though, unrelated to the article. After reading through it, I'm trying to figure out just how the show has a G rating, I'll just chalk it up to that only be an occasional rating for some episodes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]