Talk:Renee Bradshaw/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

Thank you for your patience as you have waited for a review of this article. I will read it carefully and present a review in the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Quadell for choosing to give your time. Rain  the 1  20:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This article has several strengths, but it has several significant weaknesses as well.

Here are some of the article's strengths. The lead correctly summarizes all sections of the article, and it's an appropriate length. The non-free image is used appropriately, and its rationale is good. The quote in the blue box helps to understand the character, and it's formatted correctly. The "References" section is great, and I'm quite impressed with the quality of sources used. All the statements that need to be sourced, are sourced. The article is reasonably complete, neutral, and stable. The infobox and categories are great. The plot summaries generally use present tense, which is appropriate. The "Reception" section is very good. The direct quotes are all chosen well and formatted correctly.

But there are problems with the article as well. The biggest problem is with grammar and prose. Every paragraph has grammar errors. Here are just a few examples The article is full of these grammar problems. Someone really needs to go over it with a fine-toothed comb to make sure the grammar is correct and the prose is clear everywhere, not just in the examples I mentioned.
 * "Renee also features in feud over her shop". I think you mean a feud?
 * "He was unhappy with the show's Corner Shop set decided to implement changes." I don't understand that sentence. Is there an "and" missing?
 * "...could not create an atmosphere of gossip that the shop had once achieved" It sounds odd to say that a shop achieves an atmosphere of gossip; that's doesn't like an achievement for a shop. Do you mean this? "...could not create the gossip-filled atmosphere that the show's other locations had provided"
 * "The go on two share two years of marital life together." I think you mean "They go on to share..."
 * "They pair later decide to become friends." I think you mean "The pair...", or you could mean "They pair off and later decide", I'm not sure.

Another problem is that the article mixes the in-universe frame of reference with the real-world frame of reference. Please see WP:Real world to see what I mean by that. The "Character development" section gives both storyline descriptions and behind-the-scenes information. Sentences describing the writers' decisisons and actors motivations are intersperced with plot descriptions in a way that violates WP:Real world. For instance, one part says "Renee falls into the river and Mavis jumps in to rescue Renee. Hindle cannot swim and was surprised to be handed a wetsuit to perform her own stunts." That first sentence is in the fictional universe, and the second sentence is about the real actors, and the reader can't easily tell what's real and what's not. This is a problem throughout the "Character development" section.

Related to the above, the article suffers from a problem of organization. The lead, "Creation and casting", and "Reception" sections are all fine. But the article has two separate sections in the middle, one called "Character development", and the other called "Storylines". But the "Character development" sections describes many of the same storylines as the "Storylines" section (Renee's wedding, her feud over an alcohol license, her car accident, her death, etc.) I think the "Storylines" section should come first, and should describe all of the important storylines (including some material that is currently in "Character development", such as a description of the fishing trip and details about the alcohol-license storyline and car-accident storyline). Then the "Character development" section should probably be renamed "Production", and should come after "Storylines". The "Production" section should not give details about the storylines; the "Storylines" section should have that information. Instead, the "Production" section should only describe the "real-world frame of reference" information about the actors and writers.

Finally, this article's readers may not be familiar with Coronation Street, or with terms that are specific to the UK. When the text uses terms that some readers might not understand, it's best to link to an article that explains it. For this reason, you should link to Rovers Return Inn, Cash register (for "till"), Sunday shopping (for "Sunday trading"), registry office, wetsuit, Driving instructor, Inquests in England and Wales (for "inquest"), and probably other places as well.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Several improvements are needed before this article can attain GA status.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are significant problems with grammar, organization, MOS:FICTION, and linking, as described above.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The referencing is excellent.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major facets are covered.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No NPOV issues.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The only image is non-free and is used appropriately.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this nomination on hold. If all issues are resolved in the next seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. – Quadell (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has been on hold for seven days, and has had very few changes in that time. I'm going to close this nomination for lack of activity. I would recommend that you request a copy-edit for this article at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests; that should improve the article greatly. Once the above issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate it for GA status again. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has been on hold for seven days, and has had very few changes in that time. I'm going to close this nomination for lack of activity. I would recommend that you request a copy-edit for this article at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests; that should improve the article greatly. Once the above issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate it for GA status again. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to complete the review. I made a start on improving the article and will carry on doing so. But I would not put the "Storyline" section first. Will this effect the outcome of the review? Rain  the 1  21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but if you put the new "Production" section before the "Storylines" section, it will be difficult to describe the behind-the-scenes information when you haven't described the scenes themselves yet. I wouldn't fail the nomination because of the order of these sections, of course, but you'll have to be careful to make sure the reader can follow your descriptions. – Quadell (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about it and I may put the section first. I will give it more though as this will determine how I construct future articles. Rain  the 1  00:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The first time I have chosen not improve an article at GAR. Strange is that. Rain  the 1  05:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)