Talk:Ste Hay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'm unfamiliar with British soaps, but very familiar with American soaps. This looks like an interesting article, and I hope that I can help improve it. Christine (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the GA criteria to review this article. I'm also looking at other soap-character articles (the FA Pauline Fowler and the GA Fatboy (EastEnders) as models.

Well-written: This article would benefit from a good copyedit. The second paragraph of the lead, for example, doesn't follow the MOS regarding tone. This is an encyclopedia, so the prose needs to be more formal. (I often copyedit the articles I review, so I may do that for you in coming days. After I complete the initial review, I'll also makes some specific comments and notes.) This article also depends too heavily on quotes; many of them should be paraphrased. The structure seems to follow the standard of categorising storylines into themes. As a result, the "Storyline" section is utterly redundant, unsourced, and superfluous, so I highly recommend that it be cut. Other than these points, the prose is easy to read, flows well, and is interesting. Someone like me, who has never seen "Hollyoaks," is able to appreciate the storylines and Ste's character development.

Factually accurate and verifiable: I did a quick check of the sources. I didn't check for close paraphrasing; perhaps I will when I make more specific notes. My concern is your choice of sources. It seems to rely on a few websites, like Digital Spy and other TV sites. These sources are "just okay", and are right on the edge of reliability, I think. I think that for GA, it's fine, but if you wanted to take this to FAC, I promise that it wouldn't pass without a wider variety of sources. For example, I would think that the coming-out storyline would have received more attention from more reputable newspapers and mags in Britain, but they aren't included in the current version of this article.

Broad in its coverage: I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but this article seems to fit this criteria. It seems to follow, for the most part, the standard set by other high-quality articles of its kind. I suggest, though, that you include more reaction and/or influence of the domestic violence and gay romance stories. If you broadened your sources, you may be able to do that.

Neutral: Good job of representing viewpoints fairly and without bias. It's often the case that articles like this have an agenda or an axe to grind, and this article seems to do neither.

Stable: Very stable; very little edit warring or vandalism in spite of its topic.

Images: This article has only three images, and they're all fair-use screenshots. I know the GA criteria is looser regarding images, but I can tell you that they won't fly in FAC. I suggest that you either try to find some fair-use images; I write and edit some TV articles, too, so I understand that may be asking the impossible. Are there any fair-use images of the actors or anyone associated with the production? I'll try and make some suggestions in my notes. If you don't anticipate going further, I recommend finding other screenshots.

This is an interesting article and much-needed. It has a great deal of potential. Let me know any way I can be of assistance in its further development. Christine (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Storylines don't need sources per :MOS:TV#Plot section it states: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question."RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize. I still maintain that the section in question is unnecessary and should be removed, for the reasons stated above. Christine (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy is quite a reliable source - It's been discussed on different occasions at the noticeboard and gained consensus. There are no fair use images for this era of Hollyoaks at present, I'm always bombarding various sites for just one image of Loretta Jones and they don't give out. Although I've GAR's normally accept if the rationales inplace explain fully the context to why they have inclusion. However, three could be considered abusing the fairness, so one could be cut if that is your wish. To the storyline section, if the parts mentioned above are chopped down, shouldn't it stay? I'm familiar with the fictional character related GA's and they all hold a storyline section in addition to the discussed SL related development sections. .. (inluding a FA too, which is a much tighter review process.)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word about DS; I just recommend that you find a wider variety of sources. I think for GA, it's fine, but if you wanted to take this article further, that's what I recommend. That won't get in the way of passing to GA, but the other issues like the prose should. I feel your pain re: images. Currently, I have an article at FAC, History of Sesame Street, which is another TV article, and I'm dealing with the exact same issue. Again, I don't think the current images, since they all seem to have rationales in place, will get in the way of a successful GAC. Here's my problem with the storyline section: it's too long and it's redundant. Most of its content is already discussed in the above sections, which are divided up thematically. I personally like a discussion of themes and their impact instead of regurgitating every storyline a character's ever been in, which feels too much like it belongs in a fan site to me. It's probably true that you have more exposure to character articles, so if you could provide them for me, that would be helpful. Christine (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well If LostHavoc is not present I'll carry out the points you will make. I've been another big contributor to this article. [1] <-- Here is a list of GA soap character articles you could look at if you wish. (All have the SL section intact.) So yeah, looking foward to seeing if you have any other ideas to help it pass.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rain, welcome! Glad to be working with ya. ;) I looked at a few of the GAs, and while a "Storylines" section isn't in all of them, it's in enough that it shouldn't be an issue here at GAR. I was only able to find just one (!) FA soap article, another British soap character, Pauline Fowler, which doesn't have a "Storylines" section. I'll let that section remain for this GAR, but I can pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't pass an FAC. Next, I will go through the article for improvement suggestions. Christine (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Lead

Now that I'm looking at the lead more closely, I think it needs to be re-written and expanded. (As I get to know the article better, maybe I'll just do it for you.) It doesn't adequately summarize the contents of the article. Here's where we first run into problems with the tone. I think that if you re-wrote it, it would probably take care of some of the tone issues. Done

"Ste was created by David Hanson and was originally intended to be a recurring character for seven episodes." Would Ste be a "recurring character" if he was only supposed to be in seven episodes? To me, "recurring" means someone who keeps coming back. Perhaps you mean that he was a "short-term character"? Done
Second paragraph: I'm having issues with it. I really want to remove the final three sentences. It puts too much emphasize on the gay stuff; if you expanded the lead, that wouldn't be an issue anymore. Done

Comment - So what I tried to do was make the parts on the gay storyline shorter, added more info covering reception and characterisation. Feel free to add or take-away though. 'Recurring' was the wrong word to use for seven episodes, you're right, it suggests a longer stint. (I think epsodic basis could have been used, right?)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rain, I think that your expansion and re-write of the lead is much improved, but it still wasn't quite right. I hope my subsequent changes are acceptable. It certainly is long enough, and it better summarizes the article. BTW, you fell into one of my all-time pet peeves: using "it's", which is the contraction for "it is", instead of "its", which is a possessive pronoun. Don't let me catch you doing it again! ;) Christine (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character creation and casting

I suggest stating when Richardson was cast, year and if possible, month.
2nd paragraph: As I stated above, I think the quotes in this paragraph should be paraphrased. It's never good to have too many quotes, and they make up the majority of this paragraph. Done
"However, he later revealed he wasn't sure Marquess would renew his contract." Excuse me for being a dense American, but I'm not sure what "Marquess" means, and I'd bet other readers wouldn't, either. I think you may need to explain it. Done

Comment - There is no source stating when, but as Hollyoaks film three months in advance, it could be safe to say it was late 2005. I've cut the quoting down, tried to paraphrase it.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a strong believer that if you can't find it anywhere in a source, it shouldn't be put in. You can't make up facts, even if it comes from logic. The paraphrasing is much improved, but please watch your tone. There were some grammar errors, and instead of bringing them here, I just corrected them. I still don't understand this sentence, though: "In November 2010, Richardson commented on his future with the show, branding it a new and thankful to be part of it." Is "branding it a new" yet another Briticism? Christine (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Comment - I meant new era. Corrected. (To an earlier comment, yeah we say things like "She fell pregnant at sixteen years old" lol)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 05:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I noticed you changed it, but you could have kept it. It's grammatically correct, and this is a British article. ;) Christine (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Characterisation

"...when he became a single father to Lucas Hay (Jude) and Leah Barnes (Jessica Croft-Lane)..." Is there a reason why Lucas shares Ste's last name but not Leah? I'm making some assumptions here, but perhaps you need to clarify like this: "...when he became a single father to Lucas, his son with Amy, and Leah, Amy's child with [some other guy]..." My fav soap, General Hospital, has a similar situation: "Lucky raised Elizabeth's sons, Cameron, whose father was Zander Smith, and Jake, who was really Jason Morgan's son but was passed off as Lucky's..." It gets even more complicated, I'm sure you can imagine. Done Also, why doesn't Jude have a second name here?

Comment - This is because the baby actors first name is only known. It's up to you if it stays or goes though.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine, just making sure. Please excuse my ignorance. Another Bono in the making, eh? ;) Christine (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ste began working in Il Gnosh..." What's "Il Gnosh"--some kind of business? Please tell me. Here's another example from GH: "Bobbie and Luke inherited their Aunt Ruby's restaurant, "Kelly's Diner," after Rudy died." Done
2nd paragraph: Again, too quote-heavy. Plus, it's now 2011. Did they end up making Ste bad again or what? See, that's my issue with a recitation of soap storylines; they change daily, so they're never up-to-date. Done
"Richardson later told Inside Soap that he hated Ste when he first joined the show, adding: "When he came into the show Ste was a bit of a skater boy, and I hated that, I decided to say all the lines in a sinister way and do under-the-eyebrows stuff, and the writers picked up on it. I feel like I've helped create it." This is what I'd do with this, as way of illustrating what I mean by paraphrasing instead of quoting: "Richardson later told Inside Soap that he hated Ste when he first joined the show, adding: "When he came into the show Ste was a bit of a skater boy, and I hated that." Richardson would recite his lines in "a sinister way and do under-the-eyebrows stuff", which Richardson felt inspired the writers to develop Ste's character more deeply." Done

Fatherhood and baby plot

"(In real life Slanina-Davies raised money for Cancer charity CLIC Sargant from her dramatic haircut.)" I'm not sure this requires a parenthesis. And you don't need to say "IRL". You could say, "Slanina-Davis sold the hair removed during the scene to the cancer charity CLIC Sargant." How much money did it raise? And did that mean that Richardson actually cut the actress' hair? Whoa, that's cool! You have to tell me those things!

Comment - I've edited it a little, but not used the phrase as S-Davies only gave money she raised from the hair cut to charity. He did cut her ponytail off yeah, but S-Davies went to a stylist after to have it tidied up, she had REALLY long hair and this was the result.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. She's a very pretty girl. GH did something similar: one of the characters, when he was in a really bad space (his girlfriend had just left him), buzz-cut his hair right in front of the camera. It was a very effective scene. Christine (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Amy fell pregnant" Is that a Britishicism I've never heard of? Remember, I don't speak English; I speak 'Merican! ;) Done
Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but Kirkwood's quote is too long. Done
"Ste later takes a violent outburst too far and a spokesperson for the serial described it as "the final straw" for Amy.^[1] She is later shown leaving Ste after finally realising she needs to accept help from those closest to her." Does this mean that Ste has another violent outburst after the hair-cutting one? If that's the case, I suggest just making it simple and say something like, "Eventually, Amy decides to accept the help of her friends and family and leaves Ste for abusing her." Done
"Richardson and Slanina-Davies then fronted a charity campaign called "Expect Respect" in order to combat domestic violence." When in the storyline did this happen--after it was over? Please provide the timeline. Done
Richardson's quote regarding the domestic abuse storyline should be paraphrased. Or better yet, put in a quotebox. (The issue's important enough to do that.) If you can find anything, was there any other effects of it? That would be nice to include here. Done

Comment - There is nothing else, I've looked through the google archive quite a bit. I paraphrased btw. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd paragraph: Ah, you explain who Leah is here. The introduction better fits the first time you mention it, and when you get there, all you have to say is, "Ste was left looking after both Lucas and Amy's daughter Leah." Done
I think the end of the 3rd paragraph needs to be revamped. Please tell me what you think of this version: "However, Abi and Daniel planned to kidnap Lucas, at first in order to keep him and then later on to give him to another family. Richardson expressed to Digital Spy his pleasure with this storyline, saying, "It's getting quite dark." He was also shocked with its entertaining and unexpected ending." Done
I see that you've made some changes to the last paragraph of this section. "However, they did not manage to."--this is a problematic sentence and is an example of the tone problems throughout this article. I changed it to: "When the storyline came to its climax, Abi and Daniel tried to take Lucas, but they were stopped." What do you think? (Note from Raintheone - That's totally fine) Done
I only have short-term memory, so could you remind us who Mike is? Done
I love what you added about Richardson working with the child actors. I see that there's no link to the source--was that intentional because it's an off-line source? Did Richardson enjoy it? I ask that because I think that we could improve it; notice that I separated it into a new paragraph. If the source supports it, how about: "Richardson reported that he enjoyed working with Jude and Jessica Croft-Lane, the young actors who played Lucas and Leah. He reported that Jude was camera shy and liked to play with camera equipment during filming and that he told Croft-Lane that his name was actually Ste." What do you think? Christine (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]

Comment - I've worded it how you suggested. Yes it's an offline reference to a soap magazine who had a exclusive interview. Mike is Amy's father and is linked at the top of the section. But I put father again because I think that is what you may be hinting at. lolRAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 05:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have time for now, but it should get you started, anyway. ;) I'll try and get a little further by the weekend, at least. Christine (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay plot and domestic abuse

I highly recommend changing the title of this section, perhaps to something like, "Gay and domestic violence storyline". Currently it sounds too much like, "It's all a gay plot"! ;) Done

Comment - I used the correct term, I didn't set the headings so I've changed the above one two, because the fatherhood and baby plot fall in the same category, and it discusses Amy's bout of domestic violance too there.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image doesn't have a fair-use rationale. The image is acceptable for GA, but I can tell you that it probably wouldn't get through FAC. Done

Comment - I checked and both additional images and they have a rationale in the summary.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 05:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph: You switch tenses throughout, and there's at least one run-on sentence. Please rewrite. Done
I recommend totally re-vamping this section. There are way too many quotes and there are major issues with the tone. Done
Much improved. I still think that the 2nd paragraph is too quote-heavy. DoneChristine (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Totally changed everything, cut the quotes out. One bigger one I've put into the quote box. I've changed the tense too so it's all past tense.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines

I'm skipping a review of this section because I think it should be removed. As I state above, it's up to you if you want to keep it; if you do, it won't get in the way of a pass. I recommend, however, that you copyedit it. Done

Comment - I have cut down any info that wasn't essential, left what was. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I don't think that it necessary to mention who Richardson lost to. Done
"The storyline which involved Ste looking after Lucas and Abi and Daniel's plans to steal Lucas went on for several months, received a mixed review." When I read this, I thought: "Of course it went on for several months; it's a soap!" ;) I don't think it's necessary to say it. How about: "The fatherhood and baby plot storyline received mixed reviews from viewers." Done
About the DS poll: I don't think it's necessary to record the exact results; think about summarizing it. Done
I suggest summarizing the Ayers quote and the one that comes after it. Does the After Elton writer have a name? Done
Love the Holy Soap quote. I wonder, though, if it belongs earlier in this section. Done
Images: This article currently only has two images. Since GA allows screenshots, I recommend adding a few where you can. Its current version wouldn't get in the way of a pass, though. Done

Comment - I think I'll leave the images as I was just in a big debate over images, there was a try to gain consensus to rid of every non free fictional character image, my stance like many others was not to abuse with too much inclusions of imagery. But since you said it doesn't matter, I've ticked it off.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images are fine. Like I've said, I hear your pain regarding images. In my own recent FAC, I had to remove several of 'em. Very painful. I learnt, though, that quoteboxes are a good alternative. You might want to think about that for Ste's article. Christine (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did a little further copyediting of the last paragraph. Hope you don't mind. Christine (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like I'm done. Let me know any way I can be of any further assistance. I'll give you a week to finish addressing my comments. Christine (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've worked through all the points you have made and now just finished the final one. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 23:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. Nice work. I will go and pass Ste now. Congratulations! ;) Christine (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference now was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[now-1] Cite error: The named reference now was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]