Talk:Shelby Corcoran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shelby Corcoran/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I'll take this article on, as a fan of the show who hasn't edited any Glee articles for years.[reply]

Do we need episode names in the lead? Most readers wouldn't know when the episodes fall into the overall season, so it's meaningless. The names are relevant later in the article, but not here. Later on France Respers does use all caps to say they "KILLED" in the episode, but the capitalization should be dropped here.

I've made a few edits to the article directly. I'll work on this review more, later. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you found two quotes ending in the word "of". I cringe, but I suppose that's the source material.
Critical response is okay now, Musical performances as well, though I do personally think it's a tad over-dependent on direct quotes. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to work on that? :O 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm on the fence. I'll get back to you on that when I do the rest of the review. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been 20 days, and the rest of the review has not appeared. Will the review be completed soon, or should this nomination be put back into the GAN pool to find a new reviewer? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering the same thing. — Robin (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that a similar disappearance occurred with Talk:The Wiggles Pty Ltd/GA1 earlier this year, my opinion is that if nothing has been done on the review by the end of the weekend, and there continues to be no response from Zanimum even as edits occur elsewhere, it can safely be treated as abandoned. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. — Robin (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for dropping off the face of the earth. I don't see any remaining issues with most of the sections, but I'm stuck on whether I agree with the formatting of the "Storylines" section. It's ordered "as the public learned it", as opposed to the actual order of events. If she were a real person, we'd write it in the order she experienced the events in her life, not the order the public discovered it. That's my main holdup from promoting the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed the review status to ask for a second opinion. Apologies. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I may disclaim with regards to the Wiggles article: I raised objection to the fact the article didn't address what corporate form the group took before "formal consolidation" in 2005. This was not addressed, the main contributor/nominator brushed off the issue, but never explicitly failed it. This character profile issue is much less critical than the glaring ommission in the Wiggles article, which still exists, despite being passed as GA by another reviewer. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may disclaim, but it doesn't explain your complete absence. Under the circumstances, you should have explicitly said something about the continuing "glaring omission"—a serious matter—when you responded on March 2, your last posting on the review page. Instead, despite a number of requests on your talk page and on the review page for you to continue, you failed to post anything for over a month, so the other reviewer took a look, saw that every issue raised had been addressed in some fashion, and passed it since no further objections had been raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second opinion: I haven't reviewed the remainder of this article per the GA criteria, so can't speak to it generally, but as far as the structure of the "Storylines" section goes, I don't see it as an issue for GA. It doesn't seem to violate any particular GA criterion, and "revelation order" seems equally logic to me as fictional chronological order (for lack of better terms). Just my two cents, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Khazar2. — Robin (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zanimum, now that the second opinion has been rendered, can you please resolve the holdup one way or another? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be nice. — Robin (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pass. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing and passing the article, but, from my perspective, you've forgotten to pass the article, as the nomination template is still in function. — Robin (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I had changed the WP TV and WP characters templates, forgot that. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Robin (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shelby Corcoran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shelby Corcoran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Does a recurring character really need such a long article? Dozens of citations and such a long article seems like overkill. Fjf1085 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelby_Corcoran&oldid=1209346083"