Jump to content

Talk:Mavis Wilton/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Thelma Barlow opted to leave in 1997, Mavis departing following the death of her husband to run a guest house in the Lake District." That needs to be rewritten to maintain the out of universe feel appropriate for the lead. Opted to leave what? And why is she called "Thelma Barlow" here but "Barlow" just a few sentences further down? Done03:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Storylines
  • "Although born in Weatherfield, Mavis is brought up in Grange-Over-Sands, where her parents, despite being tee-total, run an off licence." Why the present tense? Mavis wasn't introduced into the series until she was a mature adult. DoneGunGagdinMoan 03:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
Well I tried again, but if no good for you this time, then perhaps you'd like to re word it to a manner that suits your taste? ....GunGagdinMoan 03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm your reviewer, not your copyeditor. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a bad attitude. You have been curt and rude on various occasions during this review when people are merely trying to do what you have asked. Threatening to fail the GA because Raintheone is conversing with you is just petty. If you are unhappy with the sentence as it is, suggest a change. I see nothing wrong with it.GunGagdinMoan 03:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude is for others to judge, but I see nothing productive coming from you. I'm placing this review on hold, which gives you up to seven days to address my concerns. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones need adressing?RaintheOne BAM 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing productive coming from me in what way? I appear to have taught you a new word after all, moralistic. Everything you have flagged has been fixed from what I can see. You may wish to state what hasn't been fixed so editors can actually do something about it. I don't intend to participate further, because you have left a bad taste in my mouth. Good luck Rain.GunGagdinMoan 03:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a wise choice. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will also find I'm not willing to work with you either. You have been too rude to me and now Gungadin through out. How about a second opinion?RaintheOne BAM 04:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask for one. Malleus Fatuorum 04:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mavis and her actress Thelma Barlow have received various accolades over the years." Mavis does not own her actress. Who received the accolades?
Looks like it was just the character who received the accolades, changed accordingly. - JuneGloom Talk 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In popular culture
  • "Mavis was famously spoofed often by comedian Les Dennis in the 1980s." Famously spoofed? Often? Who says it was famous? The only reference to Mavis in the citation is "His [Tommy Cooper's] big feet were sticking out through the curtains as Dennis and Gee carried on with a sketch about Mavis and Vera in Coronation Street.
Hey thankyou for starting the review on this article. A quick question. How many additional news sources would you like mentioning his Mavis impression?RaintheOne BAM 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one reliable one, saying that it was "famous" and that he did it "often". Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There many sources saying he did it. Would these be okay? This one says "he is known for" [1] and this one say "who never missed an opportunity" to do it [2].RaintheOne BAM 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the last one, which says that he "never missed an opportunity" to do his Mavis impression, and attribute it to whoever said it, not that Dennis was famous for it, and adjust the article text accordingly. As in "According to ...". Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it. Though, I'm not sure "according to" is needed. The point we were making would be that Dennis often spoofed Mavis. Virgin Media say he never missed a chance to do it, atleast 7 other news sources mention him doing it, then years later he was at it again. This time press sources reported him "wooing" Amanda Holden. That is why I wouldn't have minded including some more as it backs up the notion is wasn't a one of spoof. (Sorry to be over focusing on one detail of the article at present.)RaintheOne BAM 00:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make strong claims then you have to provide strong sources, and the Daily Star won't cut it. Bear in mind that you're making allegations about Amanda Holden and Les Dennis that are entirely inappropriate in an article about this fictional character. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we went off topic, it is the popular culture section. Amanda and Les are couple who were in the public eye... Amanda Holden her self admitted to it. Just offering one instance of how he used it - going off topic would perhaps be discussing each time he did it.RaintheOne BAM 00:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at your sourcing, and remember that this is an article about Mavis, not Dennis and his wife. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I should remove it - then I'll be happy too. Looking over it again, the general reader would perhaps question it's encyclopedic value.RaintheOne BAM 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised you did remove it because of it being sourced by the Daily Star. That source has lost any support for reliability now, hasn't it. I'll have to remember not to use it again.RaintheOne BAM 02:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to persuade me that this isn't anything other than a blatant spam link.[3]
It is the official ITV shop selling this product. Perhaps we should have included a link to talk of official products being released by ITV to promote the serial's 50th anniv.RaintheOne BAM 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't start listening to me then I'll be left with no other choice than to fail this article. You cannot try promoting a garden gnome and hope to get away with it at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove it right away then - I personally have no interest in the gnome.RaintheOne BAM 00:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think I confused you a little though, I didn't explain myself at all. The main reason that was included, on my part was because their comedy storyline has been called classic, bizarre - among other things. So it is a notable plot for them, I wanted to convey the sense that it is still remembered as such right up until 2010.. So with it being a primary source, I did include it for the quote part about it being a favourite plotline.. perhaps a questionable move with it being the official shop and all.RaintheOne BAM 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's you that's confused. We can either work together to get this article to meet the GA criteria or I will fail it in seven days time because it doesn't. I'd prefer that we work together, but it's your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just assumed you would like to know why I included it. I prefer it when reviewers get stuck into a review like yourself. I'm more than happy to work with you. Looking at the many GAR's you have done, this article will thrive.RaintheOne BAM 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated this article for a GA review. All I'm doing is giving you a review based on the GA criteria. Whether it passes or not is no reflection on whether or not it's a "good" article". There are lots of good articles that aren't "good" articles, some of which I've written myself. The point I'm making is that my job here is just to decide, with your help, whether or not this article meets the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exit
  • "Barlow stated in 2007 that she would be unlikely to return to the role of Mavis, suggesting that she would be unable to cope with the production changes, which has increased its output since Barlow last appeared in 1997." You need to fix that sentence.
I had to read the source a couple of times, as the sentence confused me, but I've had a go at changing it. - JuneGloom Talk 22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think of my version. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. - JuneGloom Talk 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Barlow admitted she had been asked to return on several occasions." You "admit" to something you've been accused of. What was Barlow accused of?
I changed it to told and added who she told too. - JuneGloom Talk 23:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time Coronation Street was undergoing off-screen changes following the advent of a new producer's tenure". Advent is unlikely to be the right word here, as it's a period leading up to something, in the obvious case Christmas.
Changed to "..off-screen changes following the introduction of a new producer"RaintheOne BAM 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll restart this review tomorrow, hopefully without the noise. Or if you'd prefer I'll just fail it now and you can go straight to WP:GAR. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it if you did not fail it. This article has been in the cue for months only to recieve a few suggestions with an unwanted side order of rude comments. Atleast offer to do the decent thing and give the choice of a second op by another editor. As I'm not sure how to do it, please could you.RaintheOne BAM 04:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your position quite clear, as have I. Ask someone you trust, who has some credibility, to offer a second opinion. That's not my job. One thing you might like to think about is why this article has been in the queue for months. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you have been fair in this review? Seriously hun, you could have come in here and made this an enjoyable process. A tedious task it can be to review some times... but the general feel seems to be the want to help, improve things. I could understand if we were problem editors, but you kept on dishing out insults - which didn't encourage us to want to work with you. How is anyone in any walk of life meant to deal with such out right disinterest for someone elses view.RaintheOne BAM 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do, yes, more than fair. I've tried to help, but you think you know best. And just to put the record straight, it's been you and friends insulting me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus asked me to have a look in here. As far as I can see, it's a clash of different styles and expectations on reviews, which is causing sparks to fly. How about this. If there are things Malleus has asked for that you are uncertain what he means, ask me, and I'll puzzle it out. For starters. OK? Keep in mind that I know little about this subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair, thankyou. Please could you take a look at the points that have been adressed - It needs to be decided which have been met and which need more work. That is the bit I am confused on.RaintheOne BAM 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you enumerate them and state your views? Malleus stated his view on several, but your replies did not get done in the back and forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think they have been carried out. I've removed information Malleus felt should not be there, agreed a removal of a source. Gungadin reworded the sentence. I think all would understand the final change Gungadin made to the sentence about Mavis' mentions in certain publications. The word "moralistic" appears in the dictionary. So those points have been adressed. Mallues did not explain any further on how they could be improved - but expressed he was not happy with them through rude comments. Which means I do not know what more can be done on the points - as there is no clear suggestion of improvement.RaintheOne BAM 14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start with, Malleus objected to the phrase "varying literary publications". Perhaps you mean various?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to "The character has been discussed in a variety of publications."RaintheOne BAM 14:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will go through the article myself, I suppose. There's seven days to do something, and I'm a bit behind in commitments, so I'll read over it now, read it again tomorrow, and then give you my opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Thanks again Wehwalt. :)RaintheOne BAM 14:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, always happy to expand my mind. This stuck out, "Her marriage to Derek is a surrealist one". I suspect you might want to change it, it reads very oddly. Keep in mind Malleus is the reviewer, I'm just lending a hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look it over. Would Malleus be willing to let you be the primary reviewer? I feel nothing productive can come of a bad attitude. His track record doesn't convince me he will be any different than before.RaintheOne BAM 16:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. And if you keep this up I'll fail the article right now. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to be the primary reviewer in Malleus's place.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fail it then and you can feel important else where. Wehwalt - I am genuinely sorry If I have wasted some of your contrib time. Keep up the good work. =]RaintheOne BAM 17:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be hasty, consider that Malleus did not have to ask me to come here. Think also of the time you've put into the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay then, I'll ask someone I know better at grammar than I am, to help me. I guess Malleus is adding more now - I left a note about the review on the GAtalk but if this willing to give it a go you can remove my comment.RaintheOne BAM 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wehwalt's comment above, don't let all your time and effort go to waste. I'm willing to help out, if it is okay with Malleus. - JuneGloom Talk 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me, the more eyes the better. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I'll work up some comments tomorrow and look at what Malleus has had to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or is this a really Harsh review? MayhemMario 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few comments:
Lede
  • " paired with her boss Rita Sullivan and her husband Derek Wilton" This is a problem, as the "pair" seems to be three people. I suggest recasting the sentence as: "Mavis was portrayed as moralising, uptight, and dithering, and often appeared in comic scenes with her boss Rita Sullivan or her husband Derek Wilton."
Done.
Storylines
  • "but more permanently when hired " This is a very awkward phrase. I would cast the sentence something like "She briefly works for the OSS and Mossad, but gains more permanent employment at the local Whateveritis."
  • around the corner from Coronation Street. Since we are "in universe" at this point, need there be italics?
I don't believe so. - JuneGloom Talk 19:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is The Kabin italicised? If she had worked at Marks & Spencer, would that have been italicised? At most, all that is needed is quotation marks, and I'm dubious about that.
I don't think quote marks are needed for businesses either. Or I've got an awful lot of corrections to make to hundreds of articles. - JuneGloom Talk 19:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recast the first sentence of the next paragraph to avoid the double use of the word "shy". Perhaps, "In 1973, Mavis begins a relationship with the equally shy ..." As much was made in the last paragraph of Rita's dominance over Mavis, perhaps it should be mentioned whether Rita was supportive or no?
  • "non-committal" Yes, I suppose, but I think it is not the best word. Would it be fair to say that the relationship meandered?
  • Technically, Derek's feelings were not the same, as Mavis was focused on Mavis and Derek Derek. Suggest the phrase between the dashes be changed to "with similar feelings". Also, I would say that Mavis has second thoughts "about marrying Derek"; then change the next "Derek" to "him" and I think it is a little more effective.
  • "despite the occasional blip" That reads oddly informally. Perhaps "In spite of occasional crises"? Just a suggestion.
  • The last paragraph should make it clearer that what is a bad idea is them doing it together, not the guest house itself.
Characterisation
  • Can anything be said about what in the initial appearance was such a hit with viewers? Did the second appearance, at the wedding, also play into the process of making her a permanent character?
  • The second paragraph suggests Mavis might be a comedy star. I would possibly say the actress might be one, but I would not confuse the issue by saying the character is a star.
  • Consider reversing the second and third paragraphs.
Done.
  • "whilst". Never use this word. It is very much frowned upon for reasons I'm not too clear on.
Done.
  • " shop assistant that" surely "who"?
Done.
  • "In relation to her lack of male attention" Very stilted phrasing, rephrase.
Rephrased, though I may have made it worse. - JuneGloom Talk 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "describe her as a "Flighty and romantic"" No need for the "a", but does the sentence actually begin with "Flighty"? It's OK to use a lower case letter under those circumstances. I used to put the lower case letter in brackets, I'm told that is not required.
Comedy partnerships
  • "Mavis was paired in an on-screen partnership with Rita Fairclough (Barbara Knox) when she got a job working at Rita's corner shop. " I think this is one of the sentences that really bugs Malleus, I know it does me :). It bridges "in universe" and real life. The causation of the pairing with Rita was because the producers decided to do it that way, the causation is not Mavis getting a job because Mavis has no real existance. Rewrite this sentence entirely being careful not to mix the frames.
  • "TVNZ said that she was Rita's idealistic off-sider. Whilst working aside her it looked like "twittering Mavis might get left on the shelf"." Perhaps it is that my grasp of British English is not always perfect, but these sentences strike me as difficult. What is an off-sider and why is that not too slangy a term to use? And (leaving aside the question of "whilst") what does the second sentence mean?
  • "Renown for being a spinster for many years, ". First of all, you probably meant renowned. But isn't that much too strong a verb? I would say that someone is renowned for having won the Nobel Prize or curing cancer or something like that, but for staying single? Itis much too ordinary an accomplishment, which many seem to accomplish.
  • In the book title, "street" should be capitalised.
  • " Theirs was a comedy partnership," Who? Again, the actors or their characters? Also, shouldn't both words in "television monograph" be capped?
  • "Mavis was attracted" Most of this paragraph is much too "in universe". Your prose should not lose sight of the fact that these are characters, except in the storylines section.
  • "The Coronation Street Story". Is this a book? Italics?
"They have been described". With a new paragraph, you need to reestablish your subject.
  • "In the book Soap operas worldwide: cultural and serial realities, author Marilyn J. Matelski has used Mavis and Derek Wilton as examples of clever name usage in Soap opera" First, all major words in book titles are capped. Soap opera, on its own like that and not in the title, is lower case. And the whole sentence fails to explain why they are clever name usages. Even if it is obvious to brits, you need to say more.
Exit
  • "the axing". Both times you use this: The firing, (sacking would be OK too) especially since you refer to the guy as the axeman.
  • "Widowed and bereaved, Mavis left Weatherfield to run a bed and breakfast in the Lake District." I think the reader already knows Mavis' fate from your references to it, and there is no need to repeat it.
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph seems inconsistent with the rest of that paragraph. If there are different versions of events, label them as such.
Reception
  • " literal spoof of a Laurel and Hardy act in the soap as one such scene" I'd get rid of much of this "spoof of a Laurel and Hardy act in one episode".
  • " "10 best Coronation Street characters" Probably should be all words starting with caps.
  • The paragraphs in this section seem to move back and forth between discussing Mavis and the actress, without a lot of rhyme or reason. Consider reorganizing these paragraphs to talk about Mavis in one paragraph, and the actress in another.
  • "in which soap operas were "forever enamoring onto its characters"." Once I get over my shock at seeing "enamoring" as a verb, I'd say there is one too many words here and the "in" should go.
  • "Coronation Street, Brian Park, who " I'd get rid of the first of the commas, possibly both.
  • Possibly the reason why Derek's actor was sacked should be put under "exit" rather than here. Better yet, delete the first sentence of the paragraph where you quote Brian Park, and move it entire to the exit section.
  • " most bizarre storylines." I would delete the word "storyline" or else use it in place of "plot", the sentence is more effective if you end it on "bizarre".
  • I would move the sentence about Cartmel to the exit section.
  • " was very alike " "was much like". I would move these two sentences much earlier in the reception section.

If these are considered, we might be further along.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt. - JuneGloom Talk 19:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording

[edit]

As this article seems to need a lot of rewording, I had a bash at the introduction, to kick this off. (Apologies for the violence of my metaphors here.) I have never seen a single episode of Coronation Street (and am immune to the charms of TV soaps in general) so it's very likely that I screwed something up; don't hesitate to revert me.

I don't think I'll continue, but I encourage others more knowledgable than I am to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would continue Hoary, as that's exactly what's needed here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've certainly done much more than I have. Well done. ¶ I took another look today at one section of the article and was struck by the implausibility of claims in it that this or that newspaper had said this or that about the character. (One can say this about the content of an editorial but about little else.) Sure enough, the commentary was by named or unnamed authors of particular articles. There were some other oddities; see my edit summaries for details. I added two {{Vague}}s, for comments that I just didn't understand. Other editors should attend to these. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed one of those, "forever enamoring into its characters", which was caused by misquoting. What the quote actually says is "forever ensnaring its characters". Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we with this?

[edit]

It's getting a bit difficult to see the wood for the trees now, and what remains to be done, so what I propose to do here over the next day or so is to pull together all of the issues that I think are yet to be addressed before this article can be listed and the review closed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines
  • I'm uncomfortable with the two unattributed quotations.
Comedy partnerships
  • "TVNZ said that she was Rita's idealistic off-sider. Whilst working aside her it looked like 'twittering Mavis might get left on the shelf'." Perhaps it is that my grasp of British English is not always perfect, but these sentences strike me as difficult. What is an off-sider and why is that not too slangy a term to use? And (leaving aside the question of "whilst") what does the second sentence mean?
  • Offsider is slang, I suppose for team mate/friend. This is said else where, so this slang is not needed. "left on the shelf" is a phrase meaning never picked by men or never married. It was incaccurate anyway as Mavis did marry - I removed it.GunGagdinMoan 02:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mavis was attracted" Most of this paragraph is much too "in universe". Your prose should not lose sight of the fact that these are characters, except in the storylines section.
Reception

Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meade said "For 26 years, actress Thelma Barlow honed a comic gem until it cut into the national consciousness. An achievement that elevates her from the world of soap into the company of Alf Garnett, Del Boy Trotter and Basil Fawlty." My understanding of what Meade means is that, in his opinion, Mavis was known/accepted/liked by the (majority of people in the) UK for being a TV 'comedy gem' (like Fawlty, Del Boy or Garnet). That's my interpretation, but wording it that way may come across like OR, so that's why his comments have not deviated far from what's been said in the source text.GunGagdinMoan
Apologies for my lack of edits to this article during the GAR. Between internet connectivity issues, a long watchlist and good weather, I've been a bit busy. I did let Raintheone know about the outstanding points though. - JuneGloom Talk 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on his talk page as well. It would be a great shame if this article couldn't now be listed after all the good work that's been done on it over the last week or so. If Raintheone doesn't or can't take care of these points then I'd suggest just removing the material that's causing the few remaining problems, as none of it seems critical to an understanding of the character. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we can close this now; thanks to everyone who's chipped in to help. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 31 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mavis_Wilton/GA1&oldid=1142442325"