Talk:T. C. Russell/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I believe that people who use two initials usually have a space between them (i.e. "T. C. Russell"). Would you consider a page name change and global renaming? Or is there some reason you have done this?

@Johanna:I was not the one that created the page. I agree with the spacing issues have fixed that. Can you please direct be how to do a page name change and global renaming? I am still very new to Wikipedia so I am not entirely sure on how to do this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually relatively simple. Near the center-right of the page and directly to the right of the watchlist star, you should see a tab that says "more". Hover over it, and you should be able to click on a button named "move." It's pretty self-explanatory from there. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you! I feel really stupid for not noticing that as it was really obvious and easy to do >< lol Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I've noticed that you are not consistent on this spacing throughout the article, so clear that up either way.

Done

Can we find a higher-quality screenshot of this character? The current one is a little blurry.

Working Looking for a better screenshot now. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Done

If you're going to use first and last appearances, list the episode number along with it.

@Johanna: I am not sure if this is necessary as this is not used on any of the past articles that you have reviewed so I am a little confused on this suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, never mind. It's fine. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly not sure what the "classification" parameter means.

@Johanna: I think it is used to represent the status of the character on the show, like if he or she was a regular, recurring character, guest star, etc. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If that's the case (which I assume it is), I would just rephrase it. "Former; contract" sounds a bit bizarre, although I do understand what you mean. I would just put "former series regular" Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for the help on this part. It sounds really bizarre in the original wording now that you said lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add something from "Reception" in the lead.

Done

Although it is shorter than in some of your other articles, I would rename "character creation" to "development"

Done

Because most of the first paragraph focuses on the Russells generally, I would condense it as it is not needed to go in detail.

Done

"Johnson said the chance to work with Tracey Ross..." rephrase this, possibly into two sentences.

Done

Because you mention something about the character's departure in the lead, I would put it somewhere in the article, possibly in a subsection if it is long enough.
Same comment about referencing episodes.

Done Changed it to something more appropriate to the page. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Done Added some episodes references, but a majority of the information is too broad and general to pin down to just a single episode with some of the sentences/paragraphs covering weeks and months (and sometimes even years) of screen time). Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "The character received further media attention" without any other mention of the character in relation to the public service announcements. Why is this relevant?

Done Removed as it is more of a tangent. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite his original positive response..." Source?

Done

I would sprinkle in that Soap Opera Digest ref in throughout the paragraph, particularly after direct quotes.

@Johanna: I am not entirely sure what you mean as all the quotes are sourced. If you are referencing the source being included after 4x4 instead of the quote, it is because that is a paraphrase from a part of the article. Sorry if this is really obvious >< Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you haven't used ref names in any of the articles I've reviewed. It's actually very helpful as you can cite sources more than once. I'm not arguing that they're sourced, I just think that the source should be restated after direct quotes for easier access. I've taken the liberty of doing that for you this time, so just look at the diff if you want to learn how. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 04:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I am really sorry! I can't believe that I forgot something that simple and now I understand what you mean. Thank you for that. It was a big help. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not considered a reliable source as it is wiki-based.

Done I just cited the episode directly instead. I can't find a reliable source that talks about this.

Why is eviandreams.com reliable?

@Johanna: I admit that eviandreams.com is not the ideal source to use, but it is the only way that I can access interviews and articles from publications like Soap Opera Weekly and other soap opera publications. I would argue that the site is more reliable than other fan sites as it includes the information about where the source is from. I could try to find another way to access the source through some deep archive work, but that is not an absolute certainty. Remember some of these articles/interviews are 1) over ten years old at this point and 2) most likely in print publications that can no longer be easily accessed online. I will try to look for them in the archives though as that is obviously better to cite :-) Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the case. I think it barely squeaks by considering that that is how you are accessing other, more reliable sources. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 04:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! When I have the time, I will definitely try to do some deep searching in the archives to find a better way to cite these sources. It will just take a lot of time unfortunately. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: That's all I have. Good work on the article so far, and I will definitely pass once you clear this up! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. It is a rather short article, but I really do try my best to make it better. I will try my best to find a better source to use than eviandreams (sometimes with older/less documented shows like this it may be almost impossible to do so however, much to my dismay as I would prefer a better source too ><). Let me know if you have any comments about my corrections, but otherwise, I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: For some reason, I got a message that the nomination was failed so I just wanted to check to see if everything was okay. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: That's bizarre. In fact, I am going to Pass with this edit. The bot must be malfunctioning. I'll leave a message on its talk page. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 18:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, actually. I think it just did that as a result of the name change (on the talk page, it went to a pre-review state), so I think the bot just misinterpreted what happened. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Thank you! I just wanted to make sure that I did not do anything incorrectly. I just want to thank you again for reviewing a lot of my articles related to this topic. I know it is a silly topic, but I do appreciate your help as it makes these pages a lot better. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]