Talk:Rita Bennett/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll be conducting this review. I expect to start in the next day or two. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 05:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'm so glad someone's finally getting to it. It's been at GAN for awhile. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, before I start my review proper, I wanted to ask you about one concern I have right off the bat. The article seems to be in mostly good shape, appears to be well sourced and well written. However, this is an article about a fictional character prominent in both a television series and a book series, and this article seems to be a little slanted toward the former rather than the latter. For instance, the lede includes a great deal of information about her time in the television show but the only real reference to the books is in the first sentence. (At the very least, I think it should be mentioned in the lede that, although dead in the series, she is still alive in the books.) Also, in the "Appearances" section, the "Television" subsection comes first before "Literature". Since she was first featured in the books, don't you think it should be the other way around, with Literature first and then Television? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter before continuing with the review. Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning on quick-failing this or anything (in fact, I was one of the major editors on The Getaway (Dexter) so I feel I can be helpful with this review) but I do think this might be something that needs addressing... — Hun ter Ka hn 14:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. To be honest, I've never actually read the books. From what I understand though she's far more prominent in the television series than she is in the novels, which is why her role in the show is more expanded in the article. I'd be happy to add to the lead a little to pay more coverage to her role in the books. As for the sections, that doesn't really matter either. They can easily be switched around. HorrorFan121 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some expansion and minor edit checks on the article. What do you think? The lead has more mention of her role in the novel's now. HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to take a closer look either later today or tomorrow. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, I still have some concerns. First of all, I felt the lede needed a bit of work. Some stuff seemed out of order to me, some areas needed more emphasis, and in some cases there was unnecessary detail. I've taken the liberty of tweaking the lede myself, so please take a look at my changes and, if you disagree with anything, feel free to change it back or voice any thoughts to me.

The bigger obstacle, I think is that the article is too TV-centric and doesn't include enough about the books. First of all, switching the "Literature" and "Television" sections by itself is not a sufficient solution. For one thing, it creates some structure problems because the "Literature" section still reads like it follows the "Television" section. (The first sentence in the body of the article now reads "Rita also features in the Dexter series of novels written by Jeff Lindsay," which, in addition to being grammatically incorrect, assumes the "Television" section is in front of it, which it's not.) But besides that, the "Literature" section includes nothing about Rita's personality, and very little about what her role was in the books. You have a lot of detail about this from the show (maybe too much, but that's another matter), but almost nothing from the books, and the instnaces from the books you do include are really vague, like "They are, by a humorous misunderstanding, engaged..." What was the misunderstanding, exactly?

I know that you haven't read the books, but this kind of information can probably be gleaned from reviews, which can then be cited as reliable sources. Also, part of the "Literature" section is still related to books. You include an extended quote from J.A. Lance about the disconnect that comes from Rita being dead in the show and alive in the books. I feel like since the show-Rita was adapted from book-Rita, and not the other way around, that kind of stuff should be in the "Television" section.

Finally, I think the article needs a pretty thorough copy edit. There are some instances of bad grammar (the aforementioned "Rita also features in...") as well as unencyclopedic language ("Rita is of course kept in the dark..."). I can try to work on this a bit myself, but given the other problems, I wonder if perhaps a better solution would be to take this out of GAN for now, work on the other changes I've suggested, then renominate it? If you really think you can address these problems within a week, I'm willing to keep it on hold and give you that chance. However, if you're OK with me failing it for now, I promise you that I will be willing to review it again once you renominate it, so it won't lavish in GAN for months like it did before. :) — Hun ter Ka hn 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs work still, but is a good start and could easily reach GA status once the extra mile is put in. Let me know what you think about whether to keep it on hold or to renominate it later. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with you failing it for now. It might be better to renominate it later because I don't feel I can get everything done in a week. As long as it doesn't sit at GAN for a long time again, it's okay with me. I can start looking for sources pertaining to characterization, etc. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reaction here. A lot of users would pitch a fit, so I appreciate you for handling it more maturely and agreeing to work on the problems. As I said, I'll definitely be willing to review it once you bring it back. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]