Talk:Ste Hay/GA1

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'm unfamiliar with British soaps, but very familiar with American soaps. This looks like an interesting article, and I hope that I can help improve it. Christine (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm following the GA criteria to review this article. I'm also looking at other soap-character articles (the FA Pauline Fowler and the GA Fatboy (EastEnders) as models.


 * Well-written: This article would benefit from a good copyedit. The second paragraph of the lead, for example, doesn't follow the MOS regarding tone.  This is an encyclopedia, so the prose needs to be more formal.  (I often copyedit the articles I review, so I may do that for you in coming days.  After I complete the initial review, I'll also makes some specific comments and notes.)  This article also depends too heavily on quotes; many of them should be paraphrased.  The structure seems to follow the standard of categorising storylines into themes.  As a result, the "Storyline" section is utterly redundant, unsourced, and superfluous, so I highly recommend that it be cut.  Other than these points, the prose is easy to read, flows well, and is interesting.  Someone like me, who has never seen "Hollyoaks," is able to appreciate the storylines and Ste's character development.


 * Factually accurate and verifiable: I did a quick check of the sources. I didn't check for close paraphrasing; perhaps I will when I make more specific notes.  My concern is your choice of sources.  It seems to rely on a few websites, like Digital Spy and other TV sites.  These sources are "just okay", and are right on the edge of reliability, I think.  I think that for GA, it's fine, but if you wanted to take this to FAC, I promise that it wouldn't pass without a wider variety of sources.  For example, I would think that the coming-out storyline would have received more attention from more reputable newspapers and mags in Britain, but they aren't included in the current version of this article.


 * Broad in its coverage: I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but this article seems to fit this criteria. It seems to follow, for the most part, the standard set by other high-quality articles of its kind.  I suggest, though, that you include more reaction and/or influence of the domestic violence and gay romance stories.  If you broadened your sources, you may be able to do that.


 * Neutral: Good job of representing viewpoints fairly and without bias. It's often the case that articles like this have an agenda or an axe to grind, and this article seems to do neither.


 * Stable: Very stable; very little edit warring or vandalism in spite of its topic.


 * Images: This article has only three images, and they're all fair-use screenshots. I know the GA criteria is looser regarding images, but I can tell you that they won't fly in FAC.  I suggest that you either try to find some fair-use images; I write and edit some TV articles, too, so I understand that may be asking the impossible.  Are there any fair-use images of the actors or anyone associated with the production?  I'll try and make some suggestions in my notes.  If you don't anticipate going further, I recommend finding other screenshots.

This is an interesting article and much-needed. It has a great deal of potential. Let me know any way I can be of assistance in its further development. Christine (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Storylines don't need sources per :MOS:TV it states: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 22:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize. I still maintain that the section in question is unnecessary and should be removed, for the reasons stated above. Christine (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Digital Spy is quite a reliable source - It's been discussed on different occasions at the noticeboard and gained consensus. There are no fair use images for this era of Hollyoaks at present, I'm always bombarding various sites for just one image of Loretta Jones and they don't give out. Although I've GAR's normally accept if the rationales inplace explain fully the context to why they have inclusion. However, three could be considered abusing the fairness, so one could be cut if that is your wish. To the storyline section, if the parts mentioned above are chopped down, shouldn't it stay? I'm familiar with the fictional character related GA's and they all hold a storyline section in addition to the discussed SL related development sections. .. (inluding a FA too, which is a much tighter review process.) RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 01:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word about DS; I just recommend that you find a wider variety of sources. I think for GA, it's fine, but if you wanted to take this article further, that's what I recommend.  That won't get in the way of passing to GA, but the other issues like the prose should.  I feel your pain re: images.  Currently, I have an article at FAC, History of Sesame Street, which is another TV article, and I'm dealing with the exact same issue.  Again, I don't think the current images, since they all seem to have rationales in place, will get in the way of a successful GAC.  Here's my problem with the storyline section: it's too long and it's redundant.  Most of its content is already discussed in the above sections, which are divided up thematically.  I personally like a discussion of themes and their impact instead of regurgitating every storyline a character's ever been in, which feels too much like it belongs in a fan site to me.  It's probably true that you have more exposure to character articles, so if you could provide them for me, that would be helpful. Christine (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well If LostHavoc is not present I'll carry out the points you will make. I've been another big contributor to this article. <-- Here is a list of GA soap character articles you could look at if you wish. (All have the SL section intact.) So yeah, looking foward to seeing if you have any other ideas to help it pass. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rain, welcome! Glad to be working with ya. ;) I looked at a few of the GAs, and while a "Storylines" section isn't in all of them, it's in enough that it shouldn't be an issue here at GAR.  I was only able to find just one (!) FA soap article, another British soap character, Pauline Fowler, which doesn't have a "Storylines" section.  I'll let that section remain for this GAR, but I can pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't pass an FAC.  Next, I will go through the article for improvement suggestions. Christine (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)