Talk:Chrissie Watts/GA1

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article promoted after period on hold

Reviewer: weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning/afternoon/evening/night/whatever time of day it is in your timezone! My name is weebiloobil, and I will be your reviewer for the foreseeable future. If you have any queries about the Good Article process, click here; any that aren't answered there, feel free to ask me on my talk page. A spare copy of the Good Article criteria can be found here. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm undertaking this review as part of the elimination drive. Feel feee to join in, we could always do with more reviewers! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Review

Hello again! Before I start, I just want to say nice it is to see that there is such a community working together here to improve this article. Rarely have I seen as much discussion as this for the betterment of a page on such an innocuous topic as a character from EastEnders, and of course it is of great help to me as a reviewer to see that a lot of thought has gone into this article reaching GA status. But I digress. What I am here for is to provide a review, not to praise particular editors, no matter how much praise they deserve, or indeed get. But now: the review!

Major points

Thankfully, there aren't that many of these.

Images

The two images within the body of the article themselves are fine; what I am concerned about is the image in the infobox. The fair use rationale states that " It is not otherwise possible to accurately describe the appearance of the character solely through a textual medium sufficient to create a picture in one's mind"; however, there are two pictures of Chrissie in the article that do present her appearance. If you can come up with another reason for having this picture, then fine, but until then, I feel that this article contravenes point 6(a) of the good article criteria, that is that images have a suitable fair use rationale. Personally, I like having an image there just of her head, but I'm not here to provide my opinions.

On a side point, does the "all told" need to be in the caption for the picture of Chrissie and Den?

Done reworded to remove "all told". ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JL, I've taken the liberty of using {{Non-free use rationale}} on the File:Chrissie watts ee.jpg description page and slightly expanding on the rationale, but the I think basic issue may remain. It's not something I'd considered before, but Weebiloobil is right, the inclusion of the other two images does suggest the infobox image violates WP:NFCC criteria 8. I wonder, however, if it could be argued that the other two images are so low quality that they're insufficient for visual identification of the subject? The dress image is a profile shot where the character's features are distant/blurred to the extent that she could just about be any generic blonde with curly hair, while in the second image she's turned to the side/in shadow and again her features are not clear.

I'd question how important the last image really is - would its omission be detrimental to the readers' understanding that Chrissie kills Den? I'd suggest not, and perhaps if it was removed and the low-quality/distant dress image was the only other image of Chrissie in the article, then the infobox image's rationale as the primary means of visual identification would be strengthened? Frickative 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frickative - much appreciated. I agree that the third image of Chrissie is not essential to the article. The profile image MUST be retained, so I see no objection to "sacrificing" the third image if Weebiloobil feels it is necessary to strengthen the justification of the profile picture. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

Nothing so much with this point - the article history seems to suggest that the article has gone through a lot of change recently, but I'm putting that down to getting the article ready for this review, so there's nothing to do here.

Nitpicks

Anything in bold is essential for GA status; anything else is just to help improve the article further.

The lead

There are several uncited quotations in the lead; this is fine, as they are repeated and cited later in the article, but then there are also several cited quotations. I would advise you choose one or the other, particularly when there are lots of quotes in the same sentence (eg "Other critics have variously called Chrissie a "witch",[5] "venomous", and the show's resident "black widow"." - Yes, I was just about to get round to this, as another editor had drawn it to my attention, when you began your review, but we are aware of it and shall fix it. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done All referenced material has been incorporated into section on "personality" and the citations removed from lead. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shelley

Shelley is mentioned as writing for the Daily Mail in the lead, but the same quote ("ludicrous Lady MacBeth wannabe") is then attributed to him writing in the Mirror. Judging from his Wikipedia page, and the fact that he writes for the Mirror now, I would guess that the quote came from the Mirror, but I can't tell for sure because the source requires me to sign up (or at least begin a free trial). I am assuming good faith for all the convenience links. -

Done I must have confused Daily Mirror for Daily Mail!! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror

Whilst I think it okay to use the term 'The Mirror' instead of 'The Daily Mirror', the link should at least point to the correct Wikipedia article, not the disambiguation page.This happens 4 times in the article.

Done ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty

The third sentence includes "she killed her husband, Dirty Den, in a fit of rage"; the adjective 'dirty' had not been used before to describe Den Watts, causing a little confusion.

Done Sentence now reads: "she killed her husband in a fit of rage". ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"beating out"

At one point, the article describes how Oberman beat out Joanna Lumley for the part; I had not heard 'beat out' being used before in this way, and Wiktionary claims it is a US usage. Seeing as this article concerns a British TV programme, I would advise using a more British turn of phrase.

Original viewpoint

The second paragraph of the Personality section starts with "A key facet of Chrissie's personality is her wardrobe and style"; who has decided that it is a key facet?

Done Changed to "An aspect of Chrissie's personality is..." ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Moon

Frickative mentioned this. "...both times stopped by Jake Moon at the last minute"; I would suggest some kind of reference, but I know this is forthcoming, so I won't press this too much. - This one may take some time..... I have the eps on DVD, but I just have to watch them. Unfortunately I am not sure exactly when these occasions occured, so it may time consuming. It would probably be easier just to remove the statement for the moment and replace it when I have the time to watch the eps. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done I have just removed the entire sentence and will put back when I get round to locating the relevant episodes. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anapodoton

In the section 'Victim or villain', a sentence starts with "And despite having killed her father...". Although this can be grammatically correct, it still sounds a bit odd. I don't know what you think.

Done Removed the "And". ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the last couple of things...

"The character's tough and steely persona was widely cited by TV critics. Imogen Ridgway...". The first sentence can't stand on it's own - it is unsourced. However, it can be combined with the second (...by TV critics, with Imogen Ridgway...) to make some sort of sense.

Done combined it. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast the tv editor of the Telegraph" - this should be TV or television.

Done

Looking back, this is a bit harsh for a GA review, but it can only go to improve the article. I'm putting the article on hold, so you can fix a few things. I've fixed a couple of typos myself. Feel free to come and complain on my talk page if you think I'm being a bit mean, but otherwise, I'll keep popping by to see how you're getting on. Bye for now! - weebiloobil (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not being harsh. We hope to take this article to FA eventually, so it is all good to deal with any issues now rather than later. I don't see any problems with the problems you have raised, and either myself or another editor will rectify the issues asap. Thanks again for your review, as having undertaken a number of reviews myself, I am aware that this is somewhat of a "meaty" article. Thanks again. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I've asked for has been done; as such, I have no problem with promoting this article. Congratulations! - weebiloobil (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.