Talk:Dimitri Marick/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   a few prose spots that are unclear and needs a bit more on the lead

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   a couple of spots where context is missing and could use a bit more on the lawsuit

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

• I don't have issues with the two pics in the infobox, but I don't see the critical commentary on the other two screenshots. I don't even see the confrontation picture mentioned in the body of the article, nor do I see how the pic of Natalie and Dimitri illustrates the "gothic"-ness of the character.
  • Removed both images.
• Suggest filling out the lead a hair more. It's a bit skimpy for an article this size.
  • I lengthened it some. How much further should it be expanded.
• Passive voice - you use it extensively, and switching to active voice would make your prose more interesting. Examples "He was originated by former Dynasty star Michael Nader." is passive. I've copyedited it to "Former Dynasty star Michael Nader orginated the character." I've done some copyediting throughout the article, but more could probably be done.
  • Went through the article a few times to tone down the passive voice. Is that better?
• Writing section: "The design was taken from both the description in Du Maurier's book and the depiction from Alfred Hitchcock's film adaptation of the novel." has a wiklinked "easter egg". You've got from [[Alfred Hitchcock]]'s film [[Rebecca (1940 film)|adaptation]] of the novel. which is a non-intuitive link to the film. Most folks will expect "adaptation" to link to ... adaptation, not the specific film. Per WP:EGG, these sorts of links shouldn't be made. Suggest rewording to "...and the depiction from the film Rebecca, a 1940 adaptation of the novel by Alfred Hitchcock."
  • Fixed.
• Character backstory: "He has a rivalry with his half-brother Edmund and is childhood sweethearts with his nanny, Helga's, daughter Angelique. Helga later becomes his housekeeper." this sentence is awkward. Suggest rewording to "He and his half-brother Edmund are rivals, and his childhood sweetheart was Angelique, the daughter of his nanny, Helga."
  • I took your suggestion on the rewording.
• Another easter egg link in Storyline with "... Erica Kane, with whom he has a tumultuous romance leading to [[Dimitri_Marick and Erica Kane#Storyline|two failed marriages and a miscarriage]]." you need to reword this so that folks don't skip the link thinking the link only goes to "marriage" or "miscarriage".
  • Reworded it.
• Storyline ... I'm missing something, how did Angelique end up with Wildwind? And you say "He attempts to forge relationships with both of his newfound relatives." but I only see one newfound relative, the son. Who is the other?
  • Added more information. Does that make more sense?
• Dimitri and Edmund ..."Soap Opera Digest named them Best Brother of 1994, saying..." Is that Best Brother or Best Brothers? The second makes more sense, but I don't have the sources to double check.
  • It's Best Brothers. I fixed that.
• how did the lawsuit end up? Surely it's been settled/won/lost/whatever by now.
  • Added the lawsuit result.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review, Ealdgyth. I think I went over everything. Is there anything else that needs work? Rocksey (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)