Jump to content

Talk:Steph Cunningham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSteph Cunningham has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 3, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 6, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 26, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Last appeared?

[edit]

What would be her last appearance date be if a scene was aired later, a flashback? Apparently the scene where she hears Gilly is screaming and she tries to get out hasn't been cut...RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 01:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, if the footage is new to the screen it is regarded as the character's last appearance, so should be no different here. Only if the flashback is cut from a previous episode should it be disregarded. Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so the new video footage is okay for the last appearance date. Did you know Steph tried to get out in the end, but they cut it. Updated spoilers said it would air in tomorrows, but we already know it's just a video message. Cannot trust spoilers or waveguide anymore for sources now can we?RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RAIN..the..ONE. --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't respond to my comments until I ask you to do, in case I have second thoughts. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I start usually a review with Coverage (any gaps or places where there irrelevant content) and Structure (name and sequence of the sections) then review the sections. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Hollyoaks as I go. --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]
  •  Done No backstory - that hit me immediately, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hollyoaks expects a section "Backstory". Steph appeared as a teenager (the actress was 17 when cast) - how did Steph appear, who were her family, at what time(s) (if at all) did they exit? Reading further down I see in "Storylines" that other members of the Dean family appeared later in the series. But I'd expect Steph to mention her family fairly soon after she appears, and where she came from - with citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]

Structure

[edit]
Comment - Wikiproject Hollyoaks is outdated really, backstory if any, goes in the storyline section and complies with the manual of style of all the soap operas. As there is no imforation on a backstory available from sources, I can write one from things I know for sure have been mentioned in ther programme.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need one, and the start of "Storylines" is a good place. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The backstory was already there in the Storylines, how clumsy of me, mioved it up.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 16:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Philcha (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to check before a GA review

[edit]

Casting

[edit]
A long search hasn't turned up anything specific, but I've added a citation which states that the actress joined the series in 2000. I would have expected late 1999, but multiple search strings have turned up nothing to support that. Frickative 06:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Digital Spy references further down the paragraph says March 2000, so I've moved that up. Frickative 06:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done The 2nd para, "... that year it was announced that Stenson had decided to quit. ... she was upset when the time came to leave because she felt the reality of it" looks too long. I also think it jumps forwards and backwards between the events and Stenson's feeling. How about:
    Stenson wanted to quit the series and pursue a career in musical theatre, but Lucy Allan convinced her to play out a long exit storyline which finished filming in September 2010. Before filming her final scenes Stenson secured her first West End role. She said it wasn't difficult to make the decision to quit at the time because she felt ready and that "I think ten years is a nice, round number". When the time came to leave, Stenson was upset because she felt the reality of it. [and leave out the rest]. --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
    I recommended a few more small cuts. You should either do them or explain why you disagree. --Philcha (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Make more concise, e.g.: --Philcha (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The producers saw Stenson audition for another role, and asked her to audition for Steph Cunningham. At LINC Online Stenson said, "I went straight into the final audience. My agent told me that was a good sign because they'd remembered me from ages ago and they wanted to see me for this particular character. ... So a part of me knew I had a really good chance of getting the part but I was, obviously, well chuffed when I actually got the part." Stenson was cast in the role when she was seventeen years old.
(This goes for the above point, as well.) I've been through the whole section, paraphrasing and tweaking as much as possible for conciseness, so hopefully it's succinct enough now. Given that the quotes are fewer and shorter, "well chuffed" stands out tonally, but I thought that she was pleased to be given the part would be a bit wishy-washy – after all, what actress isn't pleased to win a role? I'm open to changing it if you think it's inappropriate, though. Frickative 06:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characterisation

[edit]
It's not a deadlink, the page links the same, to the flash chart, you have to click on Steph's picture. Flash format does not come with different urls, it's still on the same page.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. And the para is more concise now. But I had to try about half the pics - I now hate Flash! --17:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
But now you can make the first para much more concise - if I were writing this, I'd keep "Steph's surname initially was Dean. Stenson has described Steph and her family as a "dysfunctional unit" and they enjoy causing trouble in everyone else's lives", remove the rest and combine the 1st & 2nd paras. --Philcha (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done"... described the Dean family ..." means Steph's names was initially Steph Dean? If I'm right, please clarify this in the para. If I'm wrong, the para looks confusing. --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • The URL for the para "BBC America describe Steph in her early years stating ..." is now a dead link. Please try Internet Archive (instructions below) - or get another source, or delete the para. --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
  •  Done If para "BBC America describe Steph in her early years stating ..." survives, this might be better under "Character development" as it seems to summarise the whole of Steph's arc - or use BBC America in other parts of Steph's stroy arc as well. --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - It already is in character development, it's describing her persona over any given time of 2000-07, the character section is for any given time.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done If para "BBC America describe Steph in her early years stating ..." survives, you need to sharpen up the English. E.g at the start, instead of "BBC America describe Steph in her early years stating" ("describe" and "stating"), try e.g. "BBC America said that in her early years Steph "can be your best friend, a confidante and sweet natured girl but get on the wrong side of her and she can be a bit of a bitch. She can be dishonest, vain, jealous and small-minded.... She causes trouble when she wants to and will happily lie and gossip to get her own way." --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
  •  Not done In "They add that she changed commenting: "As she's matured, we've seen a softer side to Steph and we now know that behind the facade is a deeply insecure little girl who craves love and affection"", "add that she changed commenting" can be made more concise, as above. --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • We must tell readers Steph's initial name and make the rest more concise. Try combining the 1st & 2nd paras something like:
Steph's surname was initially Dean, and Stenson described Steph and her family as a "dysfunctional unit" who enjoy causing trouble in everyone else's lives. BBC America said that in her early years Steph "can be your best friend, a confidante and sweet natured girl but get on the wrong side of her and she can be a bit of a bitch ... dishonest, vain, jealous and small-minded." They found that, as she matured, "we've seen a softer side to Steph and we now know that behind the facade is a deeply insecure little girl who craves love and affection." --Philcha (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para "Steph falls in love with Max Cunningham (Matt Littler), ..." tells the reader nothing about her characterisation at the time, except that's how Steph's 2nd name became Cunningham. I suggest keeping that point in "Characterisation" and moving the rest of the Max & Step storyline to "Storyline". --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Max & Step storyline mean Steph stopped being a bitch. If so, when? --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy

[edit]
  •  DoneThe source for para 1 "The character went under significant changes after being diagnosed with epilepsy ..." is a dead link. You need to use Internet Archive, find another source or remove the para.--Philcha (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
  •  Not done In para 1, "The character went under significant changes after being diagnosed with epilepsy. Off-screen the storyline also had a lot more point to it than changing the character's persona. The issue led storyline was highlighting the seriousness of the condition" is fluff, and the rest should be more concise. If the sources problem is resolved and the para survives, I suggest e.g. "Stenson said that, when the show planned for Steph to contract epilepsy, the actress spent time with another sufferer of epilepsy and got advice from epilepsy organisations about portraying the illness correctly."  Not done --Philcha (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hold on, I did change it, but left the first line. That line gets the reader into the know, about the whole point of that section. You don't start the section off with Stenson's opinion on something when the it hasn't been stated what is up with her.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Off-screen the issue led storyline was highlighting the seriousness of the condition" is fluff. --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The character went under significant changes after being diagnosed with epilepsy" is not explained until the 2nd para.
"Stenson said that, when the show planned for Steph to contract epilepsy, the actress spent time with sufferers ..." tells readers that Steph will have epilepsy. At this point Stenson researched epilepsy. Eventually Step on-screen diagnosed as epileptic, and then the effects on relationships kick in. --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "On-screen it played out as Steph worried men would no longer want her, and dated Darren Osborne (Ashley Taylor Dawson) to boost her self-esteem, he later dumped Steph after she had an epileptic seizure" is not supported by any citation and says nothing (also) and I'm not sure it's worth the space in "Storylines". Please remove the passage. --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
  •  Not done Please make "Through people's reactions to her epilepsy, Steph largely reformed as a character, and become more sensitive to other people's needs" clearer. --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't make myself clear! What type of reactions by others would make Steph largely reform and become more sensitive. E.g. sympathy for her illness? I think we need to clarify the logic, and then deal with the phrasing. --Philcha (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What citation supports "Epilepsy continued to plague her periodically over the years, In 2005 she had a seizure shortly before her one-woman show, her condition led her to believe she was possessed by the spirit, this led her to the watery grave her body had been put in, and she almost drowned." I see a citation "In Too Deep" but it's URL is malformed. --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you need to make the seizure episode(s) more concise and much less flowery, e.g. "In 2005 she had a seizure shortly before her one-woman show, and she almost drowned" - plus concise explanation of why she was near deep water at the time - . --Philcha (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Non, it's a peice of storyline info which what be verified by watching episodes of Hollyoaks.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? See every episode from 2006 to her death? the passage needs 1 or more citations. --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Character development" and its sub-sections need citations. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Her epileptic episodes came less frequent circa 2007" - "circa"????? --Philcha (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were there epileptic episodes in 2006 or after 2007? --Philcha (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soaps - Spoiler - 2137: Carmel and Mercedes have a mud fight says nothing about "Steph later came to terms with how dangerous her condition could get if she did not take control of the situation. Her epileptic episodes came less frequent circa 2007, with only one that year." --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either "Stenson later praised the storyline because it is sometimes a taboo subject in television series'" or the following quote is redundant. I prefer "Stenson later praised the storyline ..." as it's shorter and the article uses too many quotes. See WP:COPYVIO - you should not use excessive quotes from any source when it's easy to paraphrase, as here. --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant "Stenson later praised the storyline because it is sometimes a taboo subject in television series" without a quote. --Philcha (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cervical cancer

[edit]
  • In "In 2009 Allan devised a long term cervical cancer storyline for Steph, in 2010 she stepped down and Marquess took over as executive producer and he decided to keep the storyline as he thought it interesting to give Steph a serious storyline":
    • "in 2010 she stepped down" is ambiguous - could refer to the producer, the actress or the character. And it's redundant - "... long term cervical cancer storyline for Steph, and when Marquess took over as executive producer in 2010 he ..." would be more concise. --Philcha (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as he thought it interesting to give Steph a serious storyline" looks redundant - cervical cancer is serious anyway, and Step already has / had epilepsy. --Philcha (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full name and w-link for Marquess here as it's the first mention of him. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He further explained his reasons for keeping the storyline, stating: "I'm not saying she's a comedy character but she's a great comedy actress so it's about somebody we know and love going through a really hard time. By the time you get to next year with that story, you'll see what I mean by a 'Hollyoaks story'. Once that plays out you'll say, 'They could only have told it like that in Hollyoaks"" is poor writing by Marquess - "she's a great comedy actress" must be Stenson, while the rest (before and after) is about Steph; the whole passage is just poorly written advertising (by Marquess). I'd remove it. --Philcha (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also wanted to make Steph's realisation of her illness as believable as possible, of this Stenson stated: "Steph wouldn't have any prior knowledge about what to expect, and I wanted to see it fresh through her eyes"" looks inconsistent with "In preparation for the storyline Stenson studied the illness, she stated it helped because it gave her a "time line" of the journey Steph was going to take." above. Please explain, or remove one of the sentances. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On-screen the storyline begins to air showing Steph receive her diagnosis and later has to have a hysterectomy" should be more concise. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Stenson was delighted to be trusted with the storyline stating: "I'm so flattered I've been trusted with this storyline. I was the face for the campaign Arm Against Cervical Cancer last year, so it's important to me that I get it right,"" sentence "I'm so flattered I've been trusted with this storyline" is redundant as the next sentence is more informative. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steph is initially certain she will overcome the illness, of this Stenson states: "There's no other option. If she doesn't fight this, the alternative isn't worth thinking about"" looks redundant: otherwise Step obviously dies; and in fact she's dying, see "wants to spend quality time with the people she loves before she goes" in the next para; Stenson's words are misdirection, as she knows know the character is dying because the actress want to work in the West End. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stenson later spoke out about her hopes the storyline would raise awareness of the disease and help educate woman on the importance of keeping a check on their health to avoid getting into Steph's situation" should be more concise. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest "On-screen, the storyline began developing in a different direction when Steph is seen coping by using uses her cancer as a sob story in a return to her talent show roots.[22] of this Stenson stated: ..." --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Executive producer Paul Marquess commented on the storyline twist stating: 'We are very proud of the cervical cancer storyline and Hollyoaks' ability to bring a sweet and humorous tone to such a tragic story"" is more advertising by Marquess - please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how para "At one point Steph cancel's her wedding to Gilly Roach ..." helps the general reader - Quinlan is just another actor in the show, he's not an independent and accredited critic, and this would not be included if this article were about a play or film. Please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some of these, but I can't tick them as you told me not to. I'm not removing Marquess's opinions because think they are advertising. Totally riduclous.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Departure

[edit]
  • "Speaking of her exit during an interview with the Press Association, Stenson stated: "My final scenes were really sad and emotional"" is not about Steph, it's about Stenson after she left the show. Please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Her final scenes as the character, a little OOU info there. Refering to Steph.
Two character die. The other being Malachy Fisher. They could have died in a way that wasn't very dramatic actually.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "The production team were keen to keep details of who would die under wraps until transmission, with producer Marquess commenting ""We're remaining very tight-lipped on which characters will survive the fire,"" "The production team were keen to keep details of who would die under wraps until transmission, with" is redundant and also not in the source. Please remove. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't one of the ref say in that block that Producers wouldn't reveal who dies? Yeah it does. =)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was paraphrasing, Gilly goes slightly off the rail one source states..RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saving the lives of Amy, Lucas and Leah" in the 2nd para is redundant as the same is said in the 1st para. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you combine the rest of the 2 paras in this sequence: final scenes in September 2010; "fire week"; very tight-lipped on which characters will survive; prior to transmission it was revealed that Steph would risk her own life to save others'; Steph refuses to leave the burning building (omit "shock turn of events"); Steph's legacy lives on; Stenson performed some of her own stunts (omit " refusing to use a stunt double"); episodes were promoted with a promotional trailer.
  • Re "honored", either explain that it comes from Twitter (i.e. its just an online forum, not a proper critic) or remove it. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll want it removed anyway, it's a report from a good source commenting from a verified account.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines

[edit]
  • I think this section is too long. The prose can be made more concise, e.g. "Distracted by the quarrel, An oblivious Steph diddoes not realised that she is being stalked by serial killer, Toby Mills (Henry Luxemburg). It was part of a storyline that had been running in the background for while. He attacked her, and proceeds by stabbing who stabs her in the head and leaving her to die. Steph was then found unconscious and she woke wakes up a week later in hospital, where she wasis diagnosed with epilepsy. Steph was She is the only one of Toby's victim to survive an attack." At a guess "Storylines" can be abbreviated by at least 25% such by more concise writing - and we also need to check whether all the content is strictly relevant. I'll ask other GA reviewers' opinions at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Steph_Cunningham. --Philcha (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the section down from 2,400 words to just under 900. I may well keep chipping away at it for a little while, but further refinements should be comparatively minor. Frickative 07:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1 other person commented at WT:GAN, and said citations are not needed in story sections. --Philcha (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section is now fully present tense. Frickative 07:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've nixed the sentence. I don't watch Hollyoaks, but reading Toby Mills it says he goes on to kill his mother and 11 more girls, and is then killed himself. I feel as though trying to explain all that might move the central focus of the paragraph away from Steph. Frickative 07:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I'll cut the storylines down for sure. But

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. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." That's what the guideline says. It's not possible, there are many GA's and FA's that have passed noting this guideline. I'd say that expecting a little too much.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TV is a guideline while WP:V is a policy - if there's a conflict, the policy takes priority. I hope we soon get some comments from other editors at WT:GAN. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also MOS:TV#Plot section is designed for episodes and not for characters. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are there featured articles without sourced storyline sections? Anyway, how would you like me to verify the claims? Do I have to find episode summaries or use cite episode?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]
  • Inside Soap Awards 2010 Nominees says, "Carley Stenson for Steph learning that she has cancer" (1 to a very few episodes), while your article says "her cancer storyline" (a story). You also need "and" before the last clause. --Philcha (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the current 2nd para, "Due to Stenson's portrayal of the character, she was given a positive review by her co-stars ... She's a big part of our working environment, everyone was devastated"", is about Stenson rather than the character, and is not an independent review(s) as the views expressed are by other members of the show. Please remove that passage and leave only "Holy Soap describe her most memorable moment as telling Niall she did not love him and then watching him commit suicide", which is independent. --Philcha (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whittle praised his former co-star and ex-girlfriend after watching the episode online" is not independent. Please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "and after 10 years her evil creator, Professor Phil Redmond (CBE), finally decreed that she (like us) had suffered enough", who is Phil Redmond (with citation)? --Philcha (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "Describing her duration he stated: "She was a bully and wannabe Wag, before miraculously transforming herself into the show's tragic heroine, suffering cervical cancer, epilepsy and a hysterectomy." He also called her "unlucky in love"", I suggest, "Shelley summarised Steph's career as "unlucky in love" and "a bully and wannabe Wag, before miraculously transforming herself into the show's tragic heroine, suffering cervical cancer, epilepsy and a hysterectomy"". --Philcha (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the para about Deller's comments:

The readers would obviously know who Gilly and Tom are by now... If they've read that much.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
[edit]
That's done, no deadlinks. I archive links as I edit.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've just changed the URL to this, but it's not about Steph - just look at the page. And the URL .../index.jsp is a giveway, any URL .../index.xxx' is a home page of the whole site or a major section of it. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just find me the link then please, because I cannot, the link stays the same no matter which character profile you click on. So everytime I click Steph, thats the link I get. It's not dead, it's there.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

I'll review this last, after the main text is stable.


Problems

[edit]

I've checked down to the end of the section "Epilepsy", and at this stage I regret that the article is far from GA standard. I'll put the article on "hold" for a week for you to improve all of the articles and remove all defects - including sections I haven't yet reviewed. Articles are expected to be of GA standard, and a GA review is a quality control process, not an article improvement service. Please use the tools I've recommended, the Link Checker and DAB Checker. The parts I've reviewed show the following problems (excluding the discussion about "Storylines" at WT:GAN): --Philcha (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Text not support any citation.
  • Text has citation(s) but these do not support the text.
  • Citations with links that are dead or redirect to irrelevant pages.
  • Irrelevant text.
  • Poor and often verbose writing.

Points from our discussion at the reviewer's Talk page

[edit]

From User talk:Philcha#Steph Cunningham:

  • The article's too long. Some content looks irrelevant. A WP article isn't an annual for committed fans, it's an introduction for the general reader. You need to summarise, summarise, summarise.
  • The article depends on too many quotes by Stenson, and also from other actors and production. I suggest you reduce direct quotes to about 25% to 30% of the current level and paraphrase for the rest, concisely.
  • I'd like more comment on Steph from independent sources.
  • The writing is still poor, even in the sections reviewed so far. You don't need to be a poet, but please be concise and clear.
  • Avoid repetitions. In especial, the quotes often wholly or partly repeat content.
  • A few editors appear to produce good prose easily. The rest of us, including me, have to revise and revise - including with the examples below.
  • You did most of the work on Loretta Jones, Zoe Carpenter and Lydia Hart, including through the GA reviews. Lydia Hart is particularly concise, and the reviewer there had relatively few comments - if you can make Steph Cunningham as concise and light on the quotes, you're well on the way. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a few examples of how I think passages should be improved - from sections I've already reviewed, as GA reviews are quality control, not an improvement service:

  • Moved to section "Casting" :
The producers saw Stenson audition for another role, and asked her to audition for Steph Cunningham. At LINC Online Stenson said, "I went straight into the final audience. My agent told me that was a good sign because they'd remembered me from ages ago and they wanted to see me for this particular character. ... So a part of me knew I had a really good chance of getting the part but I was, obviously, well chuffed when I actually got the part." Stenson was cast in the role when she was seventeen years old.
  • In "Initial characterisation" I suggest condensing and combining the first 2 paras, "Steph was initially portrayed as ... arrogance and displays of egotism" and "BBC America said that in her early years ... who craves love and affection":
BBC America said that in her early years Steph "can be your best friend, a confidante and sweet natured girl but get on the wrong side of her and she can be a bit of a bitch ... dishonest, vain, jealous and small-minded. She causes trouble when she wants to and will happily lie and gossip to get her own way." They found that, as she matured, "we've seen a softer side to Steph and we now know that behind the facade is a deeply insecure little girl who craves love and affection." Stenson described Steph and her family as a "dysfunctional unit" who enjoy causing trouble for the other characters. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the show planned for Steph to contract epilepsy, Stenson spent time with sufferers and got advice from epilepsy organisations on portraying the illness correctly." She found it a challenge to satisfy viewers who suffer from the condition. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unsure what "Steph largely reformed as a character because of people's reactions to her epilepsy. She has become more sensitive to other people's needs" means? For example, do you mean that other characters become more sympathetic and that this made Steph more sensitive to other people's needs? --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of that para can be more concise. "Circa" is pretentious and uninformative - did Steph have any epilepsy seizures in 2006 or after 2007? "Watery grave" looks like a phrase from a poem, or from Ophelia's death in Hamlet. I'll suggest phrasing after you tell me where she fell into deep water and why she was near it, as an epileptic should not be near deep water. --Philcha (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

(of the review, when completely done)

I'll get started that, thanks for the review. It's a good job I archived every single link on this this page.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a second review. I agree with you on tightening the prose up, but certainly not with combining things and cutting info out. I don't like the idea of leaving stuff out, it makes it sound incomplete, I did what you asked and you went back and marked them as not done and are asking for more prose to be cut down. I'm never going to please you on this thing because your giving it a A class or FA review.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll open up a new page so that a review can occur; it should be done fairly quickly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wizardman, I'm already reviewing. The problem is that the nominator has spent more time complaining than improving the article - see User_talk:Philcha#Steph. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't wait for the second review. I'd improve it if I thought you were actually trying to give it a fair review. If I do everything you ask, I'd prefer it to be on the front page of wiki shortly. In this review philcha doesnt like certain words, wants to cut out information because "it's soap speak". I mean what is soap speak? You review in peices, and change your mind after I've done a task. (See edit history of both articles) You told me to remove information because you couldn't navigate the flash chart and became convinced the link was dead (even though I tried to explain three times). Then you told me to source every point in the storylines, ignoring the MOS and every other GA. You told me not reply to any of your comments until you had reviewed the whole thing. .. The user was even reluctent to help at first any further, I had to basically beg for more emphisis on the points, then I was told it's not the reviewers job to help because it isn't a improvement service. I think it needs a fresh perspective and a different, entirley new review. I appreciate certain points and made an effort to change them, I agreed with many and changed them. So thankyou for those.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Failed at the request of the nominator. I'm disappointed, as I gave the nominator to 15 Mar 2011 and I think the article could have improved to reach GA standard in that time. In addition to the comments in this review, please consider the advice I gave at my Talk page. Thanks to Frickative for the work done in the days few days. --Philcha (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I get a fair review this time. But thanks honey.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]
That's used ref number 36 already.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Another source.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 04:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We've met before. ;) I'll be reviewing the article. Just glancing from it everything looks good. I'm going to take a more thorough look at it later tonight. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything looks okay pertaining to disambiguation links. [5] The one on there is just linking to a redirect, so that's not a problem.

Fantastic article! I understand that the article underwent a GA review three days ago. However, I also see a lot of work has gone into it in just the past few days alone. Everything looks in check, the prose looks tight. I saw no grammatical/spelling errors while reading through the article. I find the article Good Article worthy, and I'm going to pass it.

✓ Pass

Second source

[edit]

Seems to link to no where, sorry if site is just down but it might be deadD4nnyw14 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. Archive link now added. (I'm so glad I archived all the sources on this page now.)RaintheOne BAM 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steph_Cunningham&oldid=1210554191"