Wikipedia:Peer review/Pamela Stephenson/archive1

Pamela Stephenson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually put it forward as a featured article candidate. There are lots of sources on Stephenson, covering her career as a comedian, psychologist, writer, actress, food safety campaigner, and parliamentary candidate representing the Blancmange Throwers Party. Does the article have the right balance of coverage of these? Thanks in advance for any improvement suggestions.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: This has been open over a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a look at this article -- will aim to give some feedback this weekend. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: Will you still have a chance to take a look at this article? Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, sorry about the slowness! I've had a quick look at the article but still need to pull together some comments. Will aim to do so over the next few days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alanna the Brave

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose: -- sitting down to finish my comments at long last.

You asked about the balance of coverage. In terms of personal curiosity (as a reader), I wish there was a little more content about her psychology and political activism work -- those sections are interesting, but sparse. But you probably know the source material pretty well at this point. If her career as a performer has simply gotten the most coverage, it's fair to have a larger focus on that throughout the article.
Her sexual advice column in The Guardian (15+ years) seems like a publicly prominent part of her psychology career -- maybe it deserves inclusion in the lead?
"Media scholar Leon Hunt suggested that one scene, where she played a nurse who has a live hand grenade retrieved from inside her blouse by one of the leads, epitomises the programme." --> Is this sentence referring to The Professionals, or another show? The way it starts a new paragraph by itself is a little confusing (not sure what it's describing).
In "Performing career": there is an awkward jump from "1980s and 1990s" to "2010s and 2020s". Did Stephenson not perform at all between 1993 and 2010? If she took a complete hiatus from performing during that time, it may be helpful to include a brief mention of her transition to psychology at the end of the "1980s and 1990s" section.

I'm certain FAC reviewers will be able to offer more suggestions for improvement, but this article seems like it has a solid foundation to me. It reads well overall, and it feels like it offers insight into the different key aspects of her life. Best of luck with it! I'm going to raise this peer review again with other WiG members tomorrow to see if anyone else would like to add comments. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Comments above. Are you still working on this, or can this PR be closed? Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]