Talk:Blair Waldorf/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 17:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

AstroCog's GA review[edit]

I'll be reviewing this article, using the GA criteria, listed below. General responses, questions and comments to me can be made in this section. Responses to specific points in the review should be made in the review section below. Please sign all comments. AstroCog (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GA criteria section[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The text of the article is pretty good, but I would like to see a re-structuring of the article, to reflect good practice of character articles. See the FA for Martin Keamy as an example. As it reads, the article would satisfy fans of the show, but still leaves a general and unfamiliar reader wanting more, such as background of the story/setting. I suggest beginning with a "Background" section, which briefly describes the setting and characters. Something like "Gossip Girl is a franchise of stories that have appeared in print and as a television series. It is set in the Upper West Side of Manhattan and features characters that..." - something like that. The article itself has some pretty good background about all of this, but it's scattered around in the various sections.
    Additionally, I've been making some minor tweaks to sentences and grammar. I don't want to continue doing that, so I suggest getting a copy editor to run over the article. Be sure that language, especially tense, is consistent throughout article. The novels section doesn't need separate subsections for romance, ambition, etc. Just combine it all into a single set of paragraphs.
    So, get a copy edit before I check off 1a. Re-structure for 1b. AstroCog (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I added information about the setting to the opening paragraph. I think the rest of that section adequately introduces the character. Combined the sub-sections as well. -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not satisfied with the background. Some was added to the novels section, but that comes later in the article. I'm talking about a general background about this series, to provide context for the character, not just an introduction to her. See Restless (Buffy) for an example of a nice background section for an article about an element in a series. This character doesn't need a background section that is as lengthy, but it would benefit from something more at the beginning.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've taken some content from the opening paragraph, and moved it up to the first possible section. Hope that helps. This isn't really a "scenario"-driven story in the same manner as something like Buffy, so background info isn't going to be quite as complex. -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What about a copy edit? I think this article should have one, to help make the phrasing tighter throughout.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. I was unfamiliar with this process before. I'm wary of doing this, given how long it took to get a review -- but I do want things to be processed fairly, so I did it anyway. As you've read the entire article, do you really feel that grammatical issues are prevalent enough to warrant this? Anyway, it's been submitted for copyediting. -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The bit about "controversy, and other matters" still needs to be rephrased, IMO. In the lead, be specific: "controversy about domestic violence" for example. "Other matters" is too vague. Be specific about what those other matters are.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've altered that. Chose "physical abuse" over "domestic violence," as I don't believe the latter applied to the scene. -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Lots of link issues: dead links, sketchy redirects, etc. Go to the external links tool to see which ones, and fix 'em. I highly recommend using The Way Back Machine] to get archived versions of links, if possible. This provides permanent access to the link's content. AstroCog (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed the dead links, and threw in some replacements. As it stands, each of the links should verify the claims (unless I missed any). -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
There are still some sketchy links - just click on the "external links" tool in the above right to see the link with tagged issues. A couple have no server response.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you please clarify which two, and clarify what you mean by "sketchy"? The links I'm clicking on are leading me to the destination. How does this fail to make the article "factually accurate and verifiable"? -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ref #2 cites a webpage which is not responsive. If something is important enough to be referenced in the article, then that reference should be verifiable - in the case of a website, if you click on it, it should go to a readable page. This is why I suggested using the Way Back Machine from []. Many webpages will have been archived there, and you can get a permanent link to the archived page, which solves the problem of using the original URL in the citation, which can succumb to link rot.AstroCog (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: Yes, I know what verifiability means. In any case, I've re-checked the links, and replaced or removed the ones that weren't working. The Way Back machine apparently didn't have them, so I used caches. I've clicked on the remaining highlighted links, and they still appear to verify the claims within the article. Please let me know if there are any that don't. -- James26 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Make sure that all statements about characterization are referenced, either from an independent source, or from an interview or statement from the show's writers/producers. It's ok to use the show or novels themselves to reference specific character actions/events/developments. I don't see any obvious issues with this, but the article's main contributers will know best. AstroCog (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The Manga series seems to stick out has not having enough to justify a separate major section. Perhaps a major section can be created called "Character in print", with subsections for the novels and the manga. I just think the Manga stuff doesn't warrant its own major section. AstroCog (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No major issues with neutrality that I can detect. AstroCog (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems relatively stable, and managed by a curating editor. AstroCog (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Some non-free images and one released image. All with rationales. Captions are OK - manga image could use some better, like "Blair as seen in the Manga series". However, all images need alt text. AstroCog (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Added alt text. -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. Overall: This is quite a nice article, and just needs some additional work to bring it up to GA level. I'm putting it on hold until these improvements are made.
Thanks go to Grapple X who I asked to copy edit the article. Everything looks good now. Passing the article. AstroCog (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. Pass/Fail: