Talk:C. J. Cregg/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

inspired by Dee Dee Myers, - give the name an adjective Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
twice for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series and Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series each - winning X and Y twice is a bit easier to read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

character is said to have been partially inspired - said to be? Who did? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure current guidelines require in-text attribution for this one, as it's clearly cited to Crawley 2006. Pretty much every attribution maintenance template I could find (see {{Attribution needed}} and {{by whom}}) specify that it shouldn't be used if there's already a source. I can rephrase it to sidestep this, if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more that we shouldn't say "said to", perhaps "character may have been partially inspired by..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
possibly, but then the next sentence (in which Sorkin strongly denies it) looks a little weird, since we haven't said that that idea had some traction in the press/books. Maybe "reportedly"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i mean, if it's weasel words you're worried about, my understanding is that that rule doesn't really apply where a direct inline citation is provided to show that it really is said to be like that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The pantsuit would have a neutral - would have? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(who has Alzheimer's disease) - is this relevant Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source thought to include it—my guess is that it's an allusion to the fact that Alzheimer's comes with a steady degradation of motor skills. The father, who has it, shows no difficulty as C. J. fumbles with the fishing line. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Allison is just going to be a break-out, huge part of this show".[ - this could be said without a quote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but do you have a specific issue with the quote? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More that we should limit them. Could just say that he was looking to use her in the series more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: rephrased that quote, addressed the other two theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses "C.J." a lot, rather than the characters last name. Any reason? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah; it's her common name on the show and in reliable sources, which is what's supposed to be used for fictional characters per MOS:LASTNAME. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
depth,[19][20][21][22] - can we do some WP:BUNDLING? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"standard office-gal trope" of "bitchiness and hysteria" - this seems a bit irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree—it's meant to communicate that while C. J. is (viewed as) as a smart and tough and witty character, she's also not immune to misogynist tropes that show up frequently in Sorkin's writing, including The West Wing, particularly its female characters. The idea that women are too emotional for rational political work is one of those tropes, which is what Elle is conveying here. Would you like a rephrase? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote - who from the Enquirer? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, John Kiesewetter, but I'm not seeing anything in WP:INTEXT that would require that specificity (although I'm happy to make the change anyway). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Highest on their list of 144 characters... - was this a list of best characters/favourite characters/most likely to annoy people list? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
specified :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2022, The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that John Blair, newly appointed city manager of Santa Fe, New Mexico, owns a dog named C. J. Cregg with his husband.[71] - seems like Trivia to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little, but it does play into the well-acknowledged theme that The West Wing has a heck-of-a-bunch of influence on real-life politicians. I'm happy to remove it if you feel strongly, honestly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more suitable to the West wing article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, I've moved the sentence to Talk:C. J. Cregg theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the see also section, it shouldn't contain anything already listed in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments[edit]

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks so much! I call dibs on reviewing cowboy pool if no one snaps it up—but to avoid the worst of a QPQ appearance on either of our ends, I'm more comfortable waiting until this review is resolved to begin my own review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: first sweep adressed :) best wishes, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks so, so much! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]