Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poppy Meadow/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [1].

Poppy Meadow

Featured article review/Poppy Meadow/archive1

Nominator(s): Mayhem Mario 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article could be a Featured Article. This is my first time; so I dont really know what to put here. This character's article in my opinion is at least in the top 5 of all Eastnders articles. The GA review (Number 1) was not great, a speedy pass. Another user did a GA reassessment which was great, the best GA review I have ever received. The character may have been a minor character in the scale of things; but made a big impression. User:Frickative got the article to GA aswell; so although Frickative may have not nominated this article for FA, I would like Frickative to get credit if this article does pass. As this is my first time, I have read the guidelines, aswell as reading the extremely helpfull User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA! Mayhem Mario 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a soaps person myself, but it'd be interesting to see an FA-quality article on a character.

"and The Sun criticised the termination of her contract." Avoid personification of publications; also, the contract of the actress was terminated, not the contract of the character. Done.
"Poppy Meadow as portrayed by Rachel Bright" Not sure "as portrayed by" is appropriate here. How about "Rachel Bright as Poppy Meadow"
"is dating Jodie's ex-boyfriend," Who is this? A completely off-screen character? Do we not even get a name?
I take it episodes do not have names- it would perhaps be helpful in the "storylines" section if the episodes were specified.
In the "casting" section, there's actually nothing about casting.
"The Sun assessed that this venture had failed" Again, avoid personification.
"and Susan Hill of the Daily Star called her "pretty".[35]" This is not really anything to do with her personality, which the other quotes are.
"RTE called her "insane" and "irritating"," Again, personification.
I think the characterisation section needs to be reorganised. It's a little quote-farm-y at the moment. -
"Digital Spy's Daniel Kilkelly and the Daily Star have similarly referred to them as a "ditzy duo" [37][38] Bright stated in an interview that in real life she is "nothing like Poppy".[22]" Spacing/punct issue.
"In the 19 September 2011 episode, Poppy discovered that Jodie's fiance Darren (Hawkins) had cheated on her.[11] Hawkins assessed" Why are you referring to a character by their surname here? - Hawkins is the name of the actor, who was interviewd about the storyline. Darren is the character, Hawkins the actor. Mayhem Mario 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hawkins assessed that" Odd turn of phrase.
"Laspinskas deemed his character" Is this Lapinskas or Laspinskas?
"He and Jodie later kissed" No, Darren and Jodie later kissed. La(s)pinkas and Darren are not one and the same. - It was Anthony and Jodie who later kissed, therfore creating a love traingle between him, Poppy and Jodie. Mayhem Mario 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Inside Soap predicted" Personification
"RTÉ wrote" Personification. Also, the way you're referring to it (and the formatting) is inconsistent.
"Digital Spy and the Daily Star later" You know what I'm going to say... Done.
"branded her "perhaps the greatest television bit-part character of the modern age"." I don't get it. Is this some kind of joke? I don't often read The Guardian, and I don't know who Stuart Heritage is, but this almost has an air of dry Charlie Brooker sarcasm. I think he is generally being truthfull, not sarcasm. Mayhem Mario 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sun noted that... the Huffington Post similarly opined..."
Again, the reception section is a little quote-farmy.
I think more needs to be made earlier of the fact the character was a funny optimist, and the fact she was part of a double-act.
Why do you italicise Digital Spy? It's a website, not a magazine. Also, you give several publishers. What's up with that? We have given the publishers for every reference. Mayhem Mario 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You give a few locations for newspaper publishers- I don't think you really need them, but, if you want them, I think you'll need them for the magazines, too. Deleted all. Mayhem Mario 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, and I'm surprised just how notable this character actually seems to be. However, I think it needs more work before it is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - ranges should use endashes, spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi, sorry about being late; J Milburn can you give me an example of one of the personified sentences to what you want it to be like? Also Nikkimaria, im still new(ish), confused what you mean. :) Mayhem Mario 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they're looking for is as follows:

"and The Sun criticised the termination of her contract." should tell who it was who leveled the criticism, e.g., "and The Sun's Jane Smith criticised the termination of her contract." (You supply the name of the author of the article who wrote the critical words.) You do this correctly for most of the article's intro; just in this one case do you attribute the criticism to the publication (personification) itself rather than the author. - Done.
for "12-18 November", use an en dash rather than a hyphen: "12–18 November". (It's the leftmost of the special characters listed above the "Please note:" header on edit pages.) Done. I found it in two references, which I also discovered were otherwise identical, though one was part of a large reference, while the other was in its own. I don't know whether there's a way to combine the two. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- There isnt, of what I know of, and thanks, :) Mayhem Mario 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the person who is adding the bold Dones to reviewer comments please remove them to their own line and sign their entries, so we can see who is saying what is done? Please don't edit reiewer comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didnt reliaze I did, my bad. Done all comments above and below (even though some below were incorrect). Mayhem Mario 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I uncovered several problems in a few minutes of looking. This does not appear to be ready.

The linking strategy needs attention; examples: "fictional character" is common language and of low value; "Queen Victoria" in "Queen Victoria pub" should not be linked unless to an article about the pub.
In the Introduction, I'm confused about your use of "Poppy" and "Bright" interchangeably. "Poppy would be returning" and then "Bright made her return". What is your strategy for using both?
Most troubling are the problems with sources. On three random spot-checks, I found three problems.
- Ref 3a: Why place "bizarre and utterly irrelevant" in quotes but not "pointless" later? The article you reference uses that exact term.
- Ref 29b: "The EastEnders website describes Poppy as someone who 'may come across as a pretty faced bimbo', but is willing to stand up for herself, is not a push-over, and 'woe betide you should you cross her'." You are closely paraphrasing without quotation ("is not a push over" vs. "she's no push over") which is plagiarism. Additionally, the source says nothing about her being "willing to stand up for herself" and does not contain the "woe betide you" quote.
- Ref 34: "RTE's Sarah Hardy called her 'insane'." No, she didn't. The article calls her "insanely grating" which is not at all the same thing.

A complete audit by an independent editor will be needed, to check for plagiarism and mis-attribution. --Laser brain (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: At three weeks, no consensus to promote, and numerous issues have been raised that give the nominator plenty to work on before a clean start on the next nomination. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finished all points. Mayhem Mario 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.