Talk:Victoria Newman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bignole (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 January 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "Victoria Nicole Abbott (née Newman; formerly McNeil, Howard, Carlton and Hellstrom) is a fictional character from the American CBS soap opera The Young and the Restless, portrayed by Amelia Heinle." - Need to reword. Maybe, "she is portrayed by..." The statement reads clunky, because you feel like something should come after "Heinle", but nothing does.
 * Fixed by saying "She is portrayed by Amelia Heinle".  Creativity  97  23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Born onscreen in 1982..." - Does that mean the character started as a newborn in the stories?
 * Yes, she was introduced as an infant and was involved in storylines as an infant/toddler.  Creativity  97  23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "the character appeared on a recurring basis until 1990, becoming a regular when she was rapidly aged to a teenager in 1991" - This is confusing. It says she was recurring until 1990, but didn't become a regular until 1991. What happened between 1990 and 1991? I don't know from the sentence if this is a single season of the show, or if the character was off screen for a year.
 * Reworded sentence.  Creativity  97  23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After Tom's departure due to "creative differences" in 2003" - Maybe better as: "Due to creative differences, Toms departed the series in 2003, and the role was recast with .... "
 * Fixed.  Creativity  97  23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, I'm noticing a lot of issues with comma placement (or lack thereof). Has the page been thoroughly copy edited? I would recommend a request be placed with the League of CopyEditors. I didn't notice their stamp of completion on the talk page, so I assume that they've never visited the page.
 * In general, I'm noticing a lot of issues with comma placement (or lack thereof). Has the page been thoroughly copy edited? I would recommend a request be placed with the League of CopyEditors. I didn't notice their stamp of completion on the talk page, so I assume that they've never visited the page.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I'm not a huge fan of not citing in the descriptions from the episodes of the show. I think the SOAP pages do this too often. It makes it difficult to assume someone could verify any of that information given that they'd never been able to figure out if something happened in this year or another. I understand that soaps don't have episode titles and such, but they have dates, and typically writers and directors.
 * Do you mean it would be better if certain years were added to the storyline section?  Creativity  97  23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That, or just in-line citations where the reference is an approximate date, writer/director (if available), etc. That's my personal preference, and soaps are probably one of the only places that I don't see citations for plot related elements. I don't know if that's because it's difficult to acquire the information or what, but in general plots don't have to be sourced if the plot is being presented on a page about that particular episode/film/etc. For pages that use cummulative data, like character pages, we cannot verify a plot element that has no source if we don't know where to try and look. Again, soaps are a different breed when it comes to television shows.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I added specific years to events in the storylines section. Does that make it better?  Creativity  97  21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. At least now, a reader has a better idea of when these events took place in the grand scheme of the soap world.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Pretty well covered as far as focus. Good job.
 * 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:
 * A few things that are not pertintent to any particular criteria. For the former names, you really should only use the original name (if it changed from the first appearance). "Nee" is meant to be used for people who have maiden names and are now married and their article's reflect their current name. It isn't meant to list every former name of a character, as we don't do that for living people who actually do change their names.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few things that are not pertintent to any particular criteria. For the former names, you really should only use the original name (if it changed from the first appearance). "Nee" is meant to be used for people who have maiden names and are now married and their article's reflect their current name. It isn't meant to list every former name of a character, as we don't do that for living people who actually do change their names.

As for the rest, I've only listed a few things with the prose, regarding the grammar. If you know someone who does good copy editing, then I would ask them to do it. Otherwise, I would request the League do the copy editing. There were most things throughout the page, but it would devour this page to try and list every one. I focused on the lead with some items, but it really needs another eye to review the entire thing. I'll keep on watch on this page, and the article page, and I will come back in a few days (or sooner if it's done) to re-review everything.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will see about a copyeditor.  Creativity  97  23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you put in a request to The League of CopyEditors, or a personal request to someone? BTW, a new picture of Toms was added to the article. It's kind of unnecessary to have 2 pictures of her right next to each other. Given that there is a free one available, I would suggest ditching the non-free promotional image.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked a friend of mine; they said they'd see what they can do and already cleaned up/added some stuff. Won't it take up to months to get the article copyedited by the League? Not that I'm in a rush or anything, but I don't think I'd want to wait that long and pause the review. Should I remove the image of Tom in real life or the one of her as the character?  Creativity  97  01:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The wait for copy editing is not a set figure. It's like any review process, more of a matter of when someone decides to do it. What I mean, is that there is no absolute order to when they get copy edited, and so they could do it tomorrow if someone looked at the article and thought it would be a quick edit. They also sometimes will speed up edits for articles being reviewed. I'm fine with your friend doing the edits for now, but it's always good to put in a request and have one of the league do an additional edit (the more people view a page the better). As for the images, I'd get rid of the non-free image. You have an "in-character" image already with the current actress, and WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE only really allow 1 image for the sole purpose of "visually identifying". Given that you have a free one of Toms, that one is probably better to use to at least show a previous actress.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will put in a request with the League and see what happens. Can we not continue with the review until the page has a thorough copyedit? I will remove the Heather Tom as Victoria image.  Creativity  97  02:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll review it again at the 7 day mark, which is the standard, to see how the page looks with regard to grammar. If the grammar issues in the rest of the article have been fixed, then it will be fine. The article needs a copy edit for grammar, but the League does not have to be the one to do it. I just find it's always good to have the League come in for an article and do it at some point, no matter if that's for a review or after a review.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Some adjustments have been made in accordance to the grammar issues; there has still been no responses to the request with the League. If possible, can we continue with the review in the next few days?  Creativity  97  00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. I tend to work late into the evening, so it will probably be this weekend before I can re-review the page. That should give a few more days to do anymore copy editing. Like I said, it isn't mandatory that the League review the page before the GAN is over. I just find it good for any page to have.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall, it's a good article. There are still copy editing needs, but it is more about flow of content and being more professional than about grammar. I'm passing the article, but there are still areas of improvement (as there should always be with GA articles).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)