Talk:Juliet Nightingale

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Juliet Nightingale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 19:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Basic stuff and comments

• Infobox looks good.
  • Thank you! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• "also Quinn" → "also known as Quinn" or something similar
  • Since Quinn was only her surname, using "also" is typically the common practice for every soap character that I've seen? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Try reducing the amounts of quotes in #Casting_and_characterisation.
  •  Done – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• The storylines section looks good as well.
  • Thank you! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Don't forget to recite sources at the end of each quote per WP:REF.
  •  Done – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Couldn't find any issues with #Relationships.
• The reception section could probably be expanded with some reviews from critics.
• Archive all sources (either manually or with this tool).
  •  Done – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Optional, but linking sources in the "|website=" parameter helps readers.
  • I'm slightly confused, this referring to the Female First source? It's the only source a link, so I assume so; it does not have a Wikipedia entry. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just referring to references in general. At second glance I now see they were already linked. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some references from Digital Spy are missing authors.

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when Hollyoaks changed Juliet Nightingale's appearance for a storyline involving drugs, actress Niamh Blackshaw was glad to get rid of her character's side ponytail? Source:

Created by DarkGlow (talk). Self-nominated at 12:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC).

• Date (as a GA), length and hook all fine. However @DarkGlow:, the Storylines section is completely unsourced and that needs to be fixed before this can proceed. QPQ not needed as the nominator only has 1 credit and no close paraphrasing. Please ping me once that is sorted and I will have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: On WP:SOAPS, it is stated that "storyline sections do not require sourcing, as the programme itself acts as the source. These sections can be verified by watching the series." Therefore, it's very rare that a storyline section of a soap character will ever have inline citations. 99% of the section is sourced in the development/relationship sections, but if it's still going to be an issue despite the consensus on WP:SOAPS, the section can technically be removed as it's not essential imo, but I see no reason to do that. – DarkGlow • 09:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure as to how that WikiProject guidance stands up compared to WP:BURDEN. It has to be more that "just watch the programme" in my book. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: MOS:TVPLOT, while not specifically about fictional characters, is applicable to talking about the plot of a series. It states that plot "may be sourced from the works themselves". The work is the series, which acts as the series. – DarkGlow • 12:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• @The C of E: From prior precedent, it seems that plot-related sections are exempt from the "every paragraph needs a citation" rule, unless the hook has to do with a plot point or if there is plot-related analysis. I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but if there are no other issues this should probably be allowed to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: WP:DYKSG#D2 also suggests that plot summaries do not need to be cited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I bow to your experience on that, still seems a little out of kilter with standard practice but good to go then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The C of E I have always known it to be standard practice per the manual of style. SL93 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References