Talk:Oliver Valentine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk • contribs • count) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I'm planning on reviewing. Right off the bat, I notice the lack of illustrations or photos: are any available? Another thing is that the sourcing looks insufficient: the sources appear to be mostly WP:Primary sources, links to the episodes of the show. Much better are WP:Secondary sources, but I don't see many of those. The few 2ndary sources I see seem to be very superficial TV-guide type sources. Aren't there any more serious, in-depth sources? Any sources that focus just on this character? I'll do a more detailed review soon. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for picking the article up for review. The image issue has proven somewhat contentious - we originally had a fair-use publicity still of the character in the infobox, but it was speedy-deleted under criteria F7, because an editor thought it was replaceable by a free image (something that admittedly puzzled me, because the show films on a closed set, and the actor most certainly doesn't make public appearances dressed in-character). And unfortunately, there are no free images of the actor either, so that's the history behind that.

Re: sources, of the 76 currently present, 27 are primary episode citations, used almost exclusively in the "Storylines" section (although MOS:TV doesn't require sources at all for such sections, I think it aids verifiability to point readers to the specific episodes events occurred in), and the majority - the remaining 49 - are secondary sources. As Holby City is sadly not the most highbrow of programmes, the sources which cover it reflect that. We did spend a great deal of time gathering sources before we began writing, and save for a column in The Guardian, it's not a subject other broadsheets have touched on. Still, the tabloid publications that regularly offer opinion pieces are at least of the 'higher end' in terms of quality (the Mirror as opposed to the Star, for instance), and the TV-guide sources proved invaluable in the "Development" sections, for having conducted several in-depth interviews with the actor about his role. Phew, I didn't mean for this to be quite so long, but I hope that helps to explain your immediate concerns. Frickative 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. On the images, if none are available, that does not prohibit GA status. As for the sources, I suspected that there would be nothing very substantial, given the, um, lightweight nature of the topic :-) I'll review the grammar, prose, and flow soon. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial appraisal:

Well-written: TBS.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Okay. Sources are not top quality, but are probably the best available given the subject matter.
Broad in its coverage: - Okay.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. - Okay. Not many viewpoints to represent.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. - Okay.
Illustrated, if possible, by images - Okay, none available.

So, the only open issue is (1): well written. I'll get to that soon, but I don't see any major issues there. --Noleander (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase "Critical response to Oliver has generally ..." should be reworded: could be construed to mean literary criticism of the authors of the shows/scripts (vs. impression of typical viewers?). --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for phrase "Oliver has received generally negative reviews from critics. ...". I understand that may be the typical wording used in the TV/soap opera world, but for a typical WP reader, they may think that means that the actor's performance (or scriptwriters authorship) were being criticized. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Noleander. Can you suggest how I should word them on this occasion? I'm confused (It doesn't take much) and not sure how to clarify them so the general reader will not misunderstand what is being said.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe something like "reviewer's interpretations" or "character assessment" or "responses to character"? --03:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed both sentences, do they sound okay?RaintheOne ^BAM 21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks good. I've assessed it as a Good Article, and the review is finished. My only final comment (but this is not an obstacle to GA) is that the article seems to have a bit too much detail in it, but that is a matter of taste. Good job! --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the review Noleander.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]