Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: no dabs, but there are three double redirects.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Their relationship evolves from heartless enemies to caring brothers, and the basketball drama, as well as the brothers' on-again/off-again romances with female characters, are significant elements within the series. C\n you get this rewritten in plain English, and what is "the basketball drama"?

Backstory given is that after having a high school relationship with Karen Roe (Moira Kelly), Dan conceived Lucas but never claimed him as his son; he did claim Nathan. Please rewrite in plain English.

The show features various couples which have contributed to the popularity of the series. Do you understand English grammar?

As the story progresses, Lucas shares romantic bonds with Nathan’s girlfriend, Do you mean they had a relationship If so. say so.

while Nathan have a romance with Lucas' best friend ??

The story of boys father,

which resulted in Lucas birth

Karen eventually marries her college professor, Andy Hargrove (Kieren Hutchison), and Dan realizes his sins and temporarily leaves the town. Sounds a little biblical, what does it actually mean?

The focus is on Lucas and Nathan rivalry amidst the basketball state championship. Their love triangle with Brooke, Peyton, Haley and their parents own love quadrangle is also explored. Missing possessive apostrophes.

These romances include Lucas with Anna Taggaro (Daniella Alonso), Jake Jagielski (Bryan Greenberg), Peyton, and the love triangle between Felix Taggaro (Michael Copon), Brooke and Mouth McFadden (Lee Norris). Somewhat muddled.

The third season puts the focus back on basketball and features the arrival of trouble-maker Rachel Gatina (Danneel Harris), who stirs drama in the Brooke-Lucas romance. Really, this is very poor prose. I thought it had been copy-edited?

Major storylines include the rivalry between Lucas and Nathan, the blossoming of Nathan and Haley's relationship, the setup of the Peyton-Lucas-Brooke love triangle, along with the parents' own love quadrangle, and the basketball state championship. This is pretty much gobbledygook and I find it offensive that it has been nominated in this shoddy state.

Please find someone who can write good plain English and get them to copy-edit the article, line by line. I really cannot decipher this substandard prose.

Quotes such as It’s interesting about the theme song. Not only is it costly – and that never sort of drives what we do creatively, but I think fans don’t understand that there’s money on the table every time they hear the theme song. That sounds like a bullshit producer response, too, but that’s a part of it because every year our budget is pretty challenged. Knowing that, when I looked at the jump ahead, the four year jump, I felt like "I Don’t Wanna Be" was very much an anthem for their adolescent lives. It was very much about who am I going to be and who am I and who am I going to be someday. Not to mention that it was 42 seconds of screen time that I knew I could use for story. So a lot went into the decision to drop the theme song, it wasn’t done lightly. need to be put into quote marks.

As noted earlier every edit seems to introduce new grammatical errots, viz. The pilot episode sees Lucas's recruitment in the high school basketball team; and how he ended up with one woman over the other.; amidst the basketball state championship; after their original is ruined by incidents such as further interactions with Psycho Derek., etc., etc. This really is very poor stuff.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Amazon is used extensively for release dates, but it is not a reliable source for these. or for statements such as "For Season 3, the basketball aspect was added back to a lesser degree, and has since continued to be a part of the series"

ref #59 "Witnessed on air, Season 5 of One Tree Hill." is OR

What makes http://www.dvdverdict.com/ a reliable source?

"AT&T is prominently inserted into the show as a sponsor. Most of the characters on the show have AT&T Mobility (and earlier, Cingular) cell phones." appears to be an unsupported statement

ref #53 is an unsourced assertation.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Hard to tell s there are so many other problems.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The whole appears to be fancruft
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images have non free use rationales, five are used and have suitable captions
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article is not well written, please get it copy-edited by someone with good literacy skills. PLease remove fancruft and use RS. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold extended until 25 December on the request of nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am tending towards failing this nomination as the recent "copy-edits" have introduced further grammatical erors and some extremely turgid prose. Well I will take another look on Boxing Day a\nd make my decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear fail - the prose is poor and editors appear incapable of improving it. With regards to DVDverdict, I read the discussions at WP:RSNand there was no clear consernus that it is reliable. Discussions at RSN have also shown that Amazon is not a reliable source for release dates. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jezhotwells. I understand your dismay. But could you tone it down with the "Do you understand English grammar?" commentary? I am decent at English grammar, although I sometimes make mistakes when trying to clean up already existing wording or when creating my own. I was against this article being nominated for GA status, and the copyediting issue was one reason. I knew it needed thorough copyediting, and I wanted to get someone other than myself to do that...even though I have copyedited GA and FA articles prior to them achieving such statuses before. I'm not sure why I didn't get around to doing so. But I see that the nominator is already aware of your review and will start tackling your demands as soon as he gets some good free time. I am usually busy with other matters, on or off Wikipedia. But I will go ahead and list this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. The guild is often backlogged and may take longer than we can afford, however. I'll make a note there that the GA process for this article will end on the 25th.

Sources: I'd figured that "Witnessed on air, Season 5 of One Tree Hill" was okay to use since I'd seen that type of referencing in Wikipedia television articles before, where the plot information is sourced to a season or an episode (or both). Maybe you would accept the reference if formatted as "One Tree Hill, The CW. Season 5.", similar to some of the other references in the article? For some reason, I'd missed changing that ref away from the "Witnessed on air" wording. I would say that what makes dvdverdict.com a reliable source is what is stated in its sourced DVD Verdict Wikipedia article, and the fact that it is commonly used in media-related Wikipedia articles without question of its reliability. Why do you question its reliability? They have a staff that appears to fact check, and not just anyone can become a part of their staff. Also, I know that you did not mention YouTube, but I want to point out that I am well aware that YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. However, the YouTube sources in the article are from the official TheCWSource YouTube page, which I believe to be an exception in the "no YouTube" rule. I have seen this type of exception in other articles, some GA; others FA. If I could locate these TheCWSource video interviews on their own site, I would have used those references instead.

What do you mean by "The whole appears to be fancruft"? If you are speaking of sections like the Romance section, it exists because romance is a big part of the series. The series has mostly consisted of basketball and romance. The fanbase wars, for example, have been extensively addressed by the show's creator. This is the only section I can think of that you would consider "fancruft." Because of that, I have gone ahead and tweaked the portmanteaux information and removed all of the information about motifs until (hopefully) we get some WP:Secondary sources for that.[2] If you want me to add sources for each of the portmanteaux, I will, but I believe that is a pretty common sense issue (like adding 2 + 2), and different sources in the article (such as this MTV source) already refer to them by their portmanteaux.

The quotes that are in blockquotes do not have quotation marks because doing so would be redundant. At least that is what has been stated in various other GA reviews I have witnessed. But if you require them, adding them is not a problem.

Lastly, do you mind making this GA review viewable by just looking at the talk page? Flyer22 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soory that you got upset at my comments on the apparent lack of basic language skills. However, this is a review and if people don't want their lack of skills to be criticised then the answer is simple, don't nominate for review. Andy copy-editing should be done before nomination for GAN. If time runs out, it runs out.

"Can't Stop This Thing We Started", Rachel takes part in a Maxim photoshoot which mirrored a real-life photoshoot for Danneel Harris, Hilarie Burton and Sophia Bush, and became available in stores on October 14, 2006. I don't see how a TV episode can be a source for a statement such as "and became available in stores on October 14, 2006." And this isn't the plot section, it is a section on sponsors. I looked at the dvdverdict.com site and the biogs of its "judges", who are all amateur reviewers. All they have to do to become staff is submit reviews. As to where other articles use it as a source, I would point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is irrelevant as to whether it is a reliable source. That is why I questioned it. Do other reliable sources use it? Are any of its staff known for their journalism or reviewing skills? I haven't queried the YouTube cite to the official show channel.

Yes better and less sickening now.

I think that was a formatting issue when viewing at home on a smaller monitor that that I use at work.

The review is transcluded on the article talk page and also linked from the GAn template at top. I can't really do any more. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't upset by your comment about basic language skills. After all, if I didn't have those...I wouldn't have gotten any article to GA or helped other articles get to GA. Besides that, I didn't write all of this stuff. And what I did write, a lot of it was half-assed tweaking and more so focused on significantly building the article. Meaning I was not done (a lot of my tweaks to the wording over the months shows that). If I had been, I would have been the one nominating it. I learned my lesson before about nominating an article that I have significantly expanded and thoroughly sourced...but have yet to thoroughly tweak (being too eager to get it to GA status). Like I stated, I was against this article being nominated for GA. I just felt that your review did not need the condescension. It doesn't exactly help to build a collegial atmosphere. And this isn't exactly the worst television article on Wikipedia or anything close to it. But I know that this is your review and you are doing your job. I don't mean to step on your toes. You have done excellent work on Wikipedia, and I appreciate that.

The "Can't Stop This Thing We Started" episode source is only meant to cover the following part of the line: In Episode 4.04: "Can't Stop This Thing We Started", Rachel takes part in a Maxim photoshoot." The other part is supposed to be backed to the Maxim source. But since the Maxim source doesn't mention when this issue was released into stores, we need to either add a source backing that part or remove that part of the line. From what I know of WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability, I thought DVD Verdict passed for a reliable source since they do have an editorial staff and don't seem to select just anyone...whether we think they are amateur reviewers or not. I did not know that all one has to do to become part of the staff is submit reviews. Perhaps the people who submit reviews are thoroughly screened? Either way, I can always take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which I will do in a moment. Are you that concerned about this source? And, yes, I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not a good argument, but sometimes it is (such as when citing precedent)...as even the link says. I was merely pointing out that plenty of other Wikipedia articles use DVD Verdict without their being any question to its reliability. Contrast that to how often IMDb is rejected for most uses. As for your other questions about the source, that's why I pointed to its sourced Wikipedia article.

Thanks. Glad I could help out with that bit of copyediting. I'll make time to do some more later.

Thanks for explaining about the quotation issue.

I see about the transcluded issue.

Oh, and I combined my comments back to their original placement because I don't work well when it comes to replying with my comments divided up like that. I hope you don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Verdict is considered reliable, per an old discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#DVDTalk and DVD Verdict. And this was in 2009, before DVD Verdict even had a Wikipedia article. I don't mind starting a new discussion at the noticeboard about it, however, if you like. Flyer22 (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as you know, we got the article copyedited.[3] I took care of your latter copyediting concerns as well, as seen with the following edits:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] We also addressed your other demands, and things you didn't address...such as adding more casting and/or portrayal information to the Cast section (the first link being the additions; the others being the tweaks):[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] While teendramawhore.com and onetreehillblog.com are not good sources, they are good sources for One Tree Hill information (especially the former), and I only used them for cast information (one time each) because they feature exclusive interviews (as in interviews conducted by those sites).

Like I stated, DVD Verdict is considered a reliable source for the information it is sourced to...so I did not remove that. I also did not replace the Amazon.com sources; looking and asking around, it turns out that Amazon.com can be considered a reliable source for home release information[24]...as seen with the Smallville article which made it to GA status using Amazon.com for exactly that. Like I stated on my talk page, I don't know where to look for that information. I Googled and there are different places, but I don't know which sites are considered reliable or unreliable for that type of stuff. Sometimes, it's easy to guess from a quick assessment; other times, it's more a matter of debate here at Wikipedia. I also did not have enough time, with only hours left, to assess such sites. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. As mentioned, I did what I could in taking care of your copyediting concerns, Jezhotwells, and hope that they are satisfactory enough to promote this article to GA status. And while I know that time is up for this GA review, I just want to let you know that I received an email[25] that another copyedit is on its way. This is a different copyeditor from the guild, someone I hadn't met until today through email, who wants a shot at copyediting this article. He or she will start on Wednesday. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 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.