Wikipedia:Peer review/Maggie Horton/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this character has been on the series, Days of our Lives. The character is an extremely important character in the show. I want it up to Featured Article status, and I know it needs a lot of work, but I know I can accomplish it. I am willing to put in all the hard work necessary.
Thanks, Sami50421 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I'm not sure I can add much to the suggestions already made during the GA reassessment. My advice would be to work slowly through all of the suggestions made by the GAR reviewer to improve the article as much as possible. Here are a few other suggestions:
- The main problem is that the article is essentially a long plot summary plus a tiny bit of other material. It therefore seems doubtful that the existing article can be said to be broad in coverage. If it's not broad in coverage, it doesn't meet all the criteria for GA. The difficulty you face is that this soap-opera character may not have had enough written about her by sources that meet the WP:RS guidelines to actually write an article that is broad in coverage. I know next to nothing about Days of Our Lives and nothing at all about Maggie Horton, so I don't know if reliable sources can be found or not.
- It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar writing and research problems. For example, Bernard Quatermass is a featured article about a television character, and you might find it interesting as a model.
- I agree with the GAR reviewer that many of the existing sources are problematic. What makes each of these sources reliable? Fan sites, personal blogs, and many dot-coms do not meet WP:RS. Articles from edited journals and newspapers, books published by reputable firms, and government sources are generally reliable, but the existing article draws mostly on sources like raising-redheads.com. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any reliable sources among the existing 52 citations.
- The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page are handy for catching certain types of errors in any article. They find two dead urls in the citations and seven links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)