Wikipedia:Peer review/Naomi Clark/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Naomi Clark[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping for it to attain GA status. I've gathered about as much info as I could find on the character's creation, casting, story lines, reception, and her real-world impact on production. I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks, James26 (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha

I don't usually work on this to topic, but to my surprise I enjoyed this article. I notice you're aiming for GA, and suggest you check the GA criteria. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coverage (Philcha)[edit]

Looks OK, but I'm not expert in this type of article. You might ask others to look this aspect. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure (Philcha)[edit]

  • The article is structured on series. This is reasonable, as themes and characters can change from one series to another. But I suggest the account of all the series should have a similar structure, especially if there are further series. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I feel that the "Season 1" and "Season 2" sections simply have natural differences. However, I do intend for future sections to follow the same format as the "Season 2" section. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Conception and casting (Philcha)[edit]

The first sentence labels her "a Kelly-type." -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right. --Philcha (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Naomi Clark: The New Kelly Taylor has gone 404. Unfortunately Internet Archive doesn't have a backup, so that citation is unusable - and "... draw quick comparisons to Kelly Taylor ..." now has no citations. You must remove it, and IMO it's not a serious lost. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of that. There is actually a third source present which compares the characters (TV Guide), which I have moved up to replace the 404 and complement the other one. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The first citation supports "... draw quick comparisons to Kelly Taylor ...", so the 404 is not a important here. If you like a update, OK. --Philcha (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "As production of the spin-off began, the role would become more defined, with actress AnnaLynne McCord labeling Naomi an intelligent girl who possessed both manipulative and sensitive sides" has 3 issues:
    • Does not make it clear that McCord plays Clark. The only place where this is clear is in the lead - but WP:LEAD says the lead can't can info tha's not in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've now made that more explicit. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, she uses the exact words "intelligent" and "manipulates" while describing the character. She does not use the exact word "sensitive," but instead says that "you see her heart out there on a plate and you see it get hurt and you see how she has to cope with that. . ." -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It is rather long. How about e.g. "AnnaLynne McCord, who played Naomi Clark, description the character as "an intelligent girl who possessed both manipulative and sensitive sides" and as "someone with the principal and then someone else with her mother and then someone else with her friend."" --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Addressed above. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In the 2nd para, "The actress later stated, "I tend to reach out to people like Clark because I can see they are putting on a facade and are not as bad as they seem. They will eventually let their guard down and become nice people" repeated the same points made in 1st para. --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction (in Season 1; from Philcha)[edit]

  • "during which several aspects of the character's personality are revealed" is to uninformative that you should remove it. That leaves "Her first on-screen birthday coincides with the birth of the series" very short, and you should combine it with the previous sentence, which is also short. -Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "during which several aspects. . ." is intended as an intro to the examples which follow. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If "she becomes offended when others express doubts about her ability" is about Naomi's been caught and her mother's doubts about her ability, I wouldn't say "she becomes offended when others express doubts ...". As the source is not 100% clear, I'd remove "becomes offended". --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The one part I got from the source was "Naomi is gradually shown to have a friendly nature during her introduction, while fidelity is revealed to be of much importance to her as well. When her personal life is explored, she displays a deep capacity for love and commitment, valuing her longtime boyfriend Ethan Ward (Dustin Milligan). However, her birthday party is disrupted by the news that Ethan has been unfaithful to her." If there is relevant such in the source, it's your job to make it clear - articles are meant to the public reader, not just on fans / specialists. --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • How does the source supports "Social power is also said to be a priority of Naomi's in the pilot, along with social prominence". This looks like a summary / evaluation the article produced. --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "revealed a secret that came to hurt Silver and her family" is not 100% clear - how about e.g. "hurts Silver's family by revealed an old incident". --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Progression (in Season 1; from Philcha)[edit]

  • Re "Several of the foundations laid in the pilot are built upon as the series progresses", the article show how incidents from the pilot play out in later episodes - otherwise "built upon as the series progresses" has no grounds. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied (IMO). -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Re "She again reveals her friendly nature when she pacifies Ethan's autistic brother", IMO the source says N uses her concern with the autistic brother as a way to influence Ethan. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The article says "When her friend Adrianna (Jessica Lowndes) encounters problems due to her drug habit, Naomi's good will is displayed again, as she eventually steps in and attempts to intervene", but the source says "Naomi's name is cleared when Adrianna owns up about her drug addiction". --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Source for "In the eighth episode, her intelligence is further hinted at when it is revealed that Naomi speaks Spanish"? --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Source for "Also like Kelly, Naomi endures the experience of a family torn apart by adultery, and is later faced with the matter of an absent parent, as her mother departs town unexpectedly. After her parents have officially split, Naomi seeks temporary refuge in a hotel"? --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The very brief item in TV Guide can't support all the claims in "Later, Naomi expresses an attraction toward a West Beverly student named Liam Court (Matt Lanter), which appears mutual ... are heard due to Annie reporting the underage drinking". --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Impact (in Season 2; from Philcha)[edit]

  • The article must focus on the character, not the actress. So the following are not relevant, or need very careful phrasing:
    • "AnnaLynne McCord gained recognition as the show's breakout performer" --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "the actress was later nominated for a Teen Choice Award in the category of "Breakout Star Female"". --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of these statements are in relation to the character Naomi (as opposed to another role the actress played). I've attempted to make this more direct. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "Silver and Adrianna, who did not associate often in the first season" - Silver is character, Adrianna is actress. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Adrianna is a character in the series (as is Silver). -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I got confused. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "The actress also promoted ..." is about ... --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Regis and ... seems to provide no relevant information. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Tonight Show With Conan O'Brien ... says "this video is expired". I also dislike videos as source, as: I'm not sure they comply the "fact check" plause of WP:VERIABILITY; they're unusually hard to understand, as they have laughter, injections, etc.,so there's sometimes doubt as what they say; they're most slower to "read" than text, and I'd want the equivalent of page numbers in a book. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, this PR rather than GA review. In PR I don't go into long discussions about comments, as there's no pass / fail grade - it's your decision whether you use my comments. GA review is a different matter, because of the pass / fail grade, and on both sides of GA reviewersa I've have had some long discussions. --Philcha (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (restored after finger trouble --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Common to check[edit]

Some common issues in this article - please check the whole article to make should they're all fixed:

  • Citations don't supports what the article claims.
Remedied (so far) or questioned above. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The prose needs to be more concise - especially if the article growing longer as the series and the character continue. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
What prose needs to be more concise in your opinion? -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You'll see a few more. After some point, I'll stop, as it's your responsible to check the whole article. This would be the attitude of a GA reviews from the start - the reviewer may fix isolated slips, but would be expect the nominator to most of the work, and most before the review starts. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Don't misunderstand me; I actually have read through the article thoroughly. That's why I asked about the "concise" comment, because I think that the prose generally is concise (particularly in "Progression", "Impact", etc). Thank you for your review. -- James26 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Focus on the character, not the actress.
Thank you again for your helpful suggestions. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


OK, I thinks I've provided a realise selection of what you wish improve the article. Good luck. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)