Talk:Rita Bennett/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 02:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

My brother keeps trying to get me to watch this show, but to be honest, I'm only ever interested in Jennifer Carpenter's scenes.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Quite a lot of niggles and creases. Overall a GOCE copy-edit might be more effective, but here's a list of things I saw in case you'd rather tackle it yourself:
In the lead, "girlfriend-become-wife" seems really strange. "Girlfriend, and later, wife" would be much cleaner.
Also in the lead, "in either series" seems vague - British English would just assume that's seasons of the show, and although the article's written in AmE, there's no point leaving anything in that could be confusing. I'd use "medium".
"Dexter's son, Harrison in the television series" - should be "Dexter's son Harrison, in the television series". Move the comma.
"Portrayal as" -> "portrayal of"
"the E! writer Kristin Dos Santos said the it" -> remove first "the" (just "E! writer Kristin..."), second "the" should be "that"
"in the Dexter Morgan Series" - is the word Series meant to be capitalised? If it's not listed like this normally then use it lowercase, but leave it if the books use "Dexter Morgan Series" on the cover or something.
"he talks with a psychiatrist about his relationship issues (albeit to a psychiatrist he plans to kill)" -> "he talks with a psychiatrist about his relationship issues—albeit to a psychiatrist he plans to kill". Em dashes look and read more encyclopaedic than brackets.
"her now jailed ex-husband" -> "now-jailed" with a hyphen.
Also noticing here that the "literature" section has a bit of a point-by-point comparison with the television series. It should really stand on its own, whilst the comparisons should be mentioned in the television series' section - mentioning changes when dealing with the later medium that made them makes more sense contextually. To that point, most of the third paragraph in this section should be migrated elsewhere.
"Entitled" should be "titled", the former means "deserving of", not "named".
You've got some double em-dashes in there, which is odd. Any instances of "——" should just be "—".
Looking at the television section, I'm still seeing the heavy skewing that the first GAN mentioned. Perhaps it would be possible to give a rough character history based on what is shared in common between both versions and list the differences under the relevant headings? Not a big problem and if it can't be fixed now then I'm not fussed, but five novels' worth of material should roughly cover the same span as five television seasons.
"There is a flashback of" -> "flashback to".
The development section reads fine (one point, the next one, but minor), except it's entirely about the television series. Has Lindsay given any interviews as to his inspirations for writing the character at all? If possible, this should be included. If not, don't worry.
"Benz heard rumors from David Zayas that her character would be killed in the episode, but she was not notified until late September" -> when did she hear these rumours? Don't include September as a concrete time without another for reference - if you can't source when she heard this, then perhaps change "late September" to "much later".
The date format in the citations is inconsistent - it's not important which style to use, but they should really all be of the same style.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is fine, no worries there.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Citations are used appropriately and nothing is left to OR. However, the dating issue has been mentioned above.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I really don't feel that the novels are being depicted much here. I don't know if this is from lack of available sources (in which case it's excusable) or from lack of familiarity (in which case, perhaps members of WP:BOOK or WP:NV may be of use?

B. Focused:
Whilst perhaps too narrow, the focus definitely isn't too broad.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral and unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable, no vandalism or edit warring.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Two commons images, one non-free. Rationale works out fine.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are used well, no problems there.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, I'm going to put this article on hold. There's a fair heft of work to be done, but I don't think it's impossible to do it within the week. Might be best to go for a WP:GOCE copy-edit and see if you can dig up material on the novels whilst waiting on that, or handle the whole thing yourself. Either way, there is a Good Article in here, it just needs to be hewn out some more. Good luck!

I've implemented all suggested changes except for the expansion of the literature section, which is for two reasons, the first is that Rita is far less prominent in the books (of which I've read four since the last GAN) and as such her notability is far less accountable, secondly (linked with the first), far fewer officials have written about her solely referring to the novels, so it is extremely tough to find sources, which is probably why more TV characters have WP articles than novel characters (just a theory). Thank you very much for the review and if there is anything I have omitted or perhaps not done to your satisfaction, please let me know and I will attempt to rectify it for you. Have a cracking day. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured there'd be less material out there, so I can live with that. If you plan on taking the article to FAC at some point, I'd still keep an eye out just for anything that pops up to use. The changes are good, though, and enough for the article to pass. I'll put it through now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]