Talk:Kelli Presley/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: DarthBotto (talk · contribs) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings; I will be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, to see if it is suitable for promotion at this juncture. Within a few hours' time, I will notifying the nominator about my initial findings. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the page in its current state. It significantly fails most of the criteria at this stage and I will upgrade it to a C-Class article, but the nominator has the chance to address this page, so I will not call it an immediate failure. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Content
Lead
 * The first paragraph is short and without a hook; we are simply told who created her, who portrayed her and what typecast she maintains. Could we at least be told why she was created and the methodology behind it?
 * As a note, referencing the lead is generally considered an option, for better or for worse. That being said, including the database from Fandango is a big red mark right out the gate against this article. If references are to be used, don't use film pages.
 * The second paragraph is decent for the premise, but it could trim itself down with the detail of the setup and instead add a little about the nature of the conflict the character faces. Otherwise, the premise of this page is no more supplementary than the lead of the Black Christmas page.
 * The content of the third paragraph seems rather in order. With the references, it may be good to include the dates of publication, as well as Wikipedia links - assuming they're reliable and notable - to the publishers.
 * Upon looking at the entire lead, I believe the content would be more appropriate allocated into two paragraphs, with the first discussing who Kelli is and why she was added, and the second describing her role in the story, as well as her reception.

Appearances
 * This is one giant paragraph, which makes following the flow of the story difficult for readers.
 * That IMDb link is the epitome of an unreliable source. Keep it to that media reference pertaining to the film and leave it at that, so far as the story content is concerned.
 * I would advise the nominator to contact the Guild of Copy Editors, to have a shot at the content of the paragraph, after it has been split up, of course. There are a series of stubby sentences, poor grammar and apparent missing words, such as, "When Billy chases [what?] to the stairs..."
 * The alternate ending(s?) subsection is unlikely to be necessary, even with being expanded. It's best to simply keep it as a paragraph. Speaking of the Devil, readers should be informed of what actually those endings are. With what is presented, we simply know that the film can end in a few different ways. Please share the details.

Development
 * The first sentence and reference does not lend credence to the character's development- it's a descriptor used in a screenplay that is in turn being used as original research.
 * The character's naming convention of being named after Elvis Presley is from an unreliable source that specializes in trivia. Is there something the character's author could share, instead?
 * The BuddyTV reference suffers the same shortcomings as the Fandango and IMDb references. An alternate reference that describes Seyfriend auditioning should be used instead.
 * The final sentence is up to par and appropriate for inclusion. However, this section definitely requires the development process first and foremost, which it currently cannot lay claim to.

Reception
 * This section utilizes reliable sources, is substantive and informs the reader that this character does have an impact-- at least, in the critical light.

Good article criteria
1. Well written: The prose describing this character's appearances is unsatisfactory and without flow. The spelling and grammar of the article are dubious, as well, and must be attended to. Additionally, it is impossible for the content to be concise when there is information missing and skirted over in areas like the regards for the alternate ending(s).

2. Verifiable with no original research: While much of the article is verifiable, a large portion of the sources are unreliable, beyond the most glaring ones concerning the databases like IMDb and Fandango. Furthermore, there are portions, specifically in the development section, that are original research and not adequate for inclusion, let alone to describe a process that cannot be inferred from a screenplay.

3. Broad in its coverage: The development section hinders this category, as it immediately runs off on a tangent not related to development and never delivers on the purpose of the section. Without that critical information, this article can serve little more purpose than a regurgitation of the content from the Black Christmas page.

4. Neutral: The page does justice by not leaning one way or another. I would say the editors, specifically the nominator, have done a fine job of keeping the neutrality level.

5. Stable: This is hard to determine, as this article went untouched for years, but then saw a spurt of attention from the nominator. Thankfully, there have been no edit wars to be had.

6. Illustrated: The performer, Katie Cassidy, is shown in an appropriate location, so I feel as though the Good Article criteria is fulfilled in this regard.

@D ARTH B OTTO Alright, I've followed your instructions and made the necessary changes to the article. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much information about the development of the character so I renamed the section to simply "Casting and creation" instead. If the article still needs further improvements I'll be happy to do them. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You have done very well and you are close. However, you will need to find an alternative to that reference that utilizes the screenplay, as that is original research. If you can find an alternative to that, I'll pass this GAN. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I could not find a scource which discusses the script and how it compares to the finished movie. I could just remove it. Unless there's an alternative way to using the script in the article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue is that it's you interpreting the final character as she is compared to what's described in the raw script, which is the very definition of original research. Is there not any news source or interview that details how she was originally intended to be, as a character? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * None that I could find. To be honest, finding any source of information regarding the development of Black Christmas is pretty hard in general. :/ Maybe in the future, if I buy the DVD and watch the two documentaries that are present there I could cite them, if they offer any information regarding the character's development. Edit: I removed it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright. You certainly did choose a difficult page and although it has been an uphill battle, with most everything in shambles at the start, I believe it now has what is necessary to be re-classified as a Good Article. Congratulations; it's a pass: D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)