Talk:Holly Holliday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television / Glee / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Glee task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Thoughts on the GA nomination[edit]

The reason this article wasn't nominated for GA back at the beginning of 2012 after I revised and expanded it was that I didn't think it was ready. As I commented to Frickative at the time, when I asked her to trade articles (she would get Holly; I would take over "Pot o' Gold"):

I've hit a bit of a wall with Ms. Holliday, and I remember that you had originally intended to write an article about her before one was posted. The entire Development section needs work, but especially the Characterization and Relationships sections; if anyone can find interesting material on these, it's you. The Reception and Music sections needs to have its "A Night of Neglect" material expanded or replaced; I think my "By contrast" sentence is a bit too flip (though better than the nothing that was there before).

Unfortunately, Frickative didn't get around to it before she stopped editing on Wikipedia, but I think the weaknesses remain, and they're severe enough that I didn't bump the article from C to B status after my work. They're certainly enough to keep the article from GA status.

I'd like to suggest that you revert the GA nomination for the time being, so these issues can be addressed. One thing that all these character articles will need is more work in the Development/Characterization/Relationships sections in general: this information is generally not available from episode articles, but has to be searched out in interviews with not only the actor portraying the part, but from the character's creators as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

GAN represents improvement, so I'm not reverting the nomination. I think the article is comprehensive enough, but I agree with adding more Night of Neglect reception. — Robin (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean that it represents an opportunity for improvement if you get a good reviewer? That's true, I guess; I've always preferred to have my ducks in a row before a I nominate. Back when there were more of us in the Glee task force, we'd run our articles past others in the task force if at all possible to get another round of prose edits and perhaps some additional material before submitting to GAN. As I noted, I don't believe the article is sufficiently comprehensive as yet.
This particular article was initially written by a Wikipedia newcomer who pulled information from the various Wikipedia articles that featured material about Holly—the three episodes and Characters of Glee—and paraphrased what was there so it was almost what had been previously written, but not quite. The actual reviews of those episodes would have had more to say about Holly and the music that might be usable, but this editor didn't go looking; I've gone back in character articles to get additional comments that were cut for length in the episode articles because there are dozens of scenes and half a dozen songs to cover. What also wasn't ever done here was going out to find any other information about the character: searching out additional sources. That was the step Frickative was going to do before she left Wikipedia. For a character article aiming for GA status, I think that should be done, and is still needed in this case. The article also hasn't been brought up to date: there's some vague information about there not yet being information about a possible return in the third season despite Ryan's pre-third-season declaration (because it was written after the fall episodes from season three had aired); it's now the end of the fourth season, and she hasn't appeared again. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the nomination; agree. I'll do some expanding and polishing in the upcoming weeks before I re-nominate it.— Robin (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing it. I've always felt that this article needed someone to take it up and give it some concentrated attention: locate some extra sources from interviews around the time—there might have been some about the character around the time of the Glee movie, since Paltrow made the appearance in the two New Jersey shows that were filmed and again in London—including perhaps some in the British press, and so on. No one has done that kind of specific work yet, and it's what all character articles need. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holly Holliday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to take this article on.

Development

  • What about "The role of Holly was created by series co-creator Ryan Murphy, specifically for Paltrow, a personal friend. Murphy suggested that"
  • The sentence about Glee: The 3D Concert Movie sort of runs on. Can you think of any info that could be dropped, or can you split it into two sentences?
    • Dropped some info. Robin (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few edits in this section, that can be seen in the edit summaries.

Musical performances

  • There's enough prose between the first references to Mr. Poniewozik, that people would have to hunt to find out who he is. Thus, I've repeated his outlet.
  • Can you at least make reference to how "Forget You" is sanitized? A decade from now, people might be watching that episode of Glee, and using this article as a reference guide, but never have heard Cee-lo perform it.
    • Better? Robin (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Would it help readers to reference the source of the term "hairography"? I can see people be tripped up, even though it's mostly defined by the rest of the sentence.
    • No, I don't think so + "hairography" directs to the season one Glee episode of the same name.
  • Landslide is linked to from both Storylines and Musical performances. Turning Tables is linked to from only Storylines. Which is the standard, or even your personal standard? There is a fair distance between the first and second instances of the link/would-be link.
    • I've unlinked Landslide, having always followed the template of only linking in the first reference. Robin (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so that's it for today, more possibly Saturday. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this one! Robin (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(After you reply to any questions/concerns for those two sections, they'll both be ready for GA. I picked those sections at random, but I presume the others will be similarly easy-breasy. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

Critical reception

  • The NAMI reference needs to be filled out more, to say who published the page they're clicking on. (It's unfortunate I can't find any news outlets cover this, but not a deal breaker for GA.)

Yeah, I'll do another read through the whole way through tonight, but I think that's it. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff, I've read through again and nothing more needs to be said. Pass! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)