Talk:Paul Williams (The Young and the Restless)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC) The article has broad coverage, is neutral, stable, and has sufficient images. I have a couple of concerns with the other criteria.[reply]

The WP:SOAPS project page provides guidelines for character articles that specify 500-1000 words maximum for the storyline summary. This article has 1254 words in that section; I think it should be cut, though I understand Paul's storylines are remarkably extensive. In addition, much of what's in the "Character development" section seems to me to be more storyline information. I understand that much of the material in the "Character development" section is quotes about the plot, or about the actor's opinions, and this material is legitimate. It might be better to move the storyline section up above the character development section, which would allow you to abbreviate the character development references to the plot points -- for example, it would no longer be necessary to explain that Isabella Braña is mentally unstable before quoting comments on that part of the plotline. I think this is the main problem with the article as it stands.

It's a little hard to fit nearly four decades of storyline into under 1,000 words. I'll try and work on this.
Understood; I'm just going by the soap opera guidelines. If you like, we can post a note at the Wikiproject and ask if this character should be considered an exception to that rule. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs a little copyediting; I've done some and will do more once we're agreed on any cuts or changes.
What makes gather.com a reliable source? It appears to be essentially a social media site.

I've removed this.

There isn't really anywhere in the article that presents a summary of the overall timeline of Paul's character. I can't tell how many times he's been married, for example, without scanning the article and counting. I think something like this should be in the lead.

Do you mean as in mentioning the dates (years)? You can see how many times he's been married in the info-box.

That's everything I can see. I'm not a soap opera watcher myself, so I found this an interesting window into a different world. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing the nomination on hold while the above issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is off Wikipedia for an extended period for personal reasons, so I am failing the article. I would be willing to review quickly if it is renominated with the problems fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]