Talk:Simone Russell/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This article is second on my "to review" list. Johanna (talk to me!) 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to help. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * In my opinion, there are too many non-free files being used in this article right now. I would remove two of the pictures in the infobox.
 * I have deleted the two images of the previous actors. Doe is the primary actor being discussed in the page anyway so it makes the most sense to leave her image as the only one in the info box.


 * "Simone, a member of Passions' Russell family..." Later in the sentence, I would replace the "and" with the phrase "as well as the younger sister..."
 * Fixed!


 * Remove "her involvement in" as redundant
 * Fixed!


 * I find the hyperlink to Plot (narrative) to be a bit odd and unnecessary, although you can keep it if you wish.
 * Fixed! I can't remember how they got in there.


 * Should be "At the 17th GLAAD Media Awards..." not "in"
 * Fixed!


 * Because the lead is supposed to reflect the structure of the article, I would add some content from "Character creation" into the lead before it discusses her storylines.
 * Fixed! I forgot to update the lead after expanding the article.


 * "show's creator and co-creator..." What? He was the sole creator, no? If so, just remove the "and co-creator" part for clarity.
 * Fixed! Stupid mistake on my part.


 * I would also say "contract characters" as Russell is not a cast member :)
 * Fixed! I made a lot of stupid mistakes on this page >< lol


 * Who is Rodney Van Johnson and why is he talking about the show in "we" terms?
 * Fixed! Clarified as the actors on the show.


 * "The show identified the character primarily as Whitney's younger sister," In what way?
 * Fixed!


 * Before direct quotes, you often put a colon where one is not necessary. The first instance of that comes later in this same sentence.
 * "she stated: 'my father'" this is an appropriate colon.
 * However, the colon in the final paragraph of this section should be removed.
 * Fixed! I honestly do not know where the colons came from as I did not add them to the page.


 * The wording of "Storylines" is fine, but I would rather that it be sourced, even if it's just to primary sources (i.e. episodes).
 * In accordance to WikiProject Soap Opera's policy on "Storyline sourcing" (as linked here), the storyline sections do not require sources as the program itself acts as the source.
 * I have started to add primary sources to the Storylines section. I cannot find the writer/director, but everything else with the citations will be completed shortly.
 * I have finished adding primary sources (episodes) to the Storylines section.


 * Can you restructure the first sentence of the next section? It's a bit convoluted to me.
 * Fixed!


 * I think that section is mistitled. It's not really about her in popular culture, so I might rename it or place it as a subsection of a different part of the article.
 * I combined this section with the Reception section. If you think the Reception section is too long than I can break it up into smaller subsections. I was thinking of dividing the section into two subsections focusing on her reception as an African-American character and a lesbian, but I am uncertain where to move the paragraph about the auction (unless you think I should delete it as it is a little superfluous). I could also leave it as a longer section.


 * Pretty much all the commas in Reception before quotes should not be there.
 * I think I have corrected all the quotes for the page.


 * I would make it clear that Van Johnson is referring to the show when he says "this thing"
 * Fixed so hopefully it is more clear now.


 * Though most of your sources are good, I have some questions regarding a couple as to their reliability. They are: passionscentral, an angel fire blog, juniorscave, thesoapspiel, windycitymediagroup.com, and drewrowsome.blogspot.com. If you could explain why you think these are reliable, that would be great.
 * I will provide a reason for each source's inclusion in the page separately. Since this page is on a support character from a low-rated, 90s, 2000s soap opera, I had to be a little creative in my research in order to find resources.
 * passionscentral was the only site that I could find information on the casting of Lena Cardwell, which is an important part of the article and the Angel Fire blog was also the only source I could find that discussed Cardwell's exit from the show (which is still very vague). I understand why these two sources may not be the most reliable, but they are the only references I could find for the material. juniorscave and thesoapspiel both include one-on-one interviews with Chrystee Pharris, who was the second actress to portray the character. windycitymediagroup.com leads to the site for the Windy City Times (the oldest LGBT newspaper in Chicago) so that only should make it credible/reliable. I counted the source using Drew Rowsome as reliable given his later at fab magazine, which is a large/reliable LGBT Canadian magazine.
 * Again, the resources are pretty scarce for this character so they may not be the best sources, but I think they are necessary for the page. Hopefully this makes sense, but I can clarify anything related to this if necessary.


 * In addition, several of your refs have the work and publisher field left blank.
 * This is probably a very stupid question, but since I am relatively new to Wikipedia (I made this account at the beginning of January), I am not entirely sure what you mean by " the work and publisher field." I thought I already filled out everything for the citations and double-checked everything when I was archiving the links so I was wondering if you could explain this to me a little more. Sorry for the trouble.
 * Never mind, I understand the comment now and will correct the references by the end of today. Thank you!
 * Partially fixed! I have updated all the publishers (a majority of them I had incorrectly categorized as "website" instead of "publisher"), but I could not find any references that were lacking a title.

Thanks for nominating! Those are all my comments, and I can pass if they're cleared up. I'll be watching this page. Tell me when you've fixed these issues! :) Johanna (talk to me!) 03:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my nomination and for providing very clear comments. I have addressed a majority of your comments and answered your questions regarding the sources. I made a pretty major change by combining the old In Popular Culture and Other Media section with the Reception section so I was wondering if that was okay. I am also a little uncertain what you mean about the references lacking the work and publisher field (I'm still new to Wikipedia so I am sure you explained it and I am just missing it). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the publisher fields for all the references and I actually think the Reception section is fine as it currently stands. Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! The article looks great now. Thanks for your timely responses to my concerns and I am feeling much better now about the sources. It's always nice to see new editors doing quality work--unfortunately, the number of new active editors has decreased as of late. Pass. Johanna (talk to me!) 22:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful comments! They have helped me a lot for future work on here. And it is always great to meet nice people on here. I am very appreciate of the community on here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: