Talk:Zoe Carpenter/GA1

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

Reviewer: Frickative  05:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've given the article a thorough review: it's certainly interesting, and I can tell a lot of work has gone into it, but there are some issues that need to be addressed before it can be listed as a Good Article.


 * Lead
 * ✅Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead section of around 2-3 paragraphs long. It needs to summarise the key points of the entire article, so that it could stand alone as a concise overview. Many readers never read beyond the lead, so try to convey all the key facts you'd want them to take away about the subject.
 * ✅ The first sentence talks about the "long-running Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks". I think instead of "long-running", it would be helpful for context for international readers to substitute "British".
 * ✅ "first appeared on-screen during September 2006" - can we be specific, and say on 1 September 2006?
 * As a general rule of thumb, unless you're using a direct quote, you don't need to use references in the lead. Facts such as Lister quitting her role and leaving in January 2010 should be referenced in the body of the article instead.
 * ✅ "involved in such storylines including" - this is slightly award wording, I think "involved in storylines such as" or "involved in storylines including" would flow more easily.


 * Character creation
 * ✅ The "Backstory" section doesn't seem to have anything to do with how the character was created. If it's just a run through of her in-universe background, a better place for it would be the start of the "Storylines" section.
 * ✅ The start of the "Casting" subsection is a single sentence paragraph - I think it would be neater to combine the whole thing into one paragraph.
 * ✅ Given that the bulk of the "Casting" section actually deals with Lister quitting, "Creation" doesn't seem to accurately reflect the contents. My recommendation would be scrapping the creation heading, and inserting the casting subsection at the beginning of "Development".
 * ✅ I think this one is probably personal preference on my part, but saying "Auditions were held for the part of Zoe" seems a bit self evident, given that auditions are held for the vast majority of all acting roles. Furthermore, the source given doesn't actually say anything about auditions at all. Perhaps just begin with "Actress and dancer Zoë Lister was cast in the role of Zoe"?
 * ✅ "On 8 June 2009, Digital Spy revealed" - another good rule of thumb is to always assume that your reader is totally new to the subject. Just prefacing "media entertainment website" before Digital Spy gives that extra bit of useful context.
 * ✅ You don't need to stack three references to cite a non-contentious fact. Just pick the best one and go with it. In this case, you've already opened the sentence talking about Digital Spy, so that's the reference I'd go with.
 * ✅What's the relevancy to Zoe Carpenter of all these other cast/characters leaving? How does it aid a reader's knowledge of the Zoe character specifically to hear that a further five characters are also leaving the show? If they're related, can you make it explicit? Also note that the What's on TV source only mentions Batley, not Rigby.
 * ✅Reference 10, pointing at is a deadlink. The preceding sentence is somewhat contentious anyway, with the statement "implying that either Sarah or Zoe will die." When you begin making assumptions about what sources say, you verge towards original research territory. Indeed, although the article later states that Sarah dies,  Channel 4 talking about a "tragic curtain call" could have pertained to and implied any manner of things.
 * ✅ Publications such as Heat should always be italicized.
 * ✅ "Lister also revealed in an interview with Heat magazine that she "nervous"" - you seem to be missing a "was" here :)


 * Personality and identity
 * ✅When you make assertions about a character's personality, they should always be backed up by third party sources, so that readers can tell the information is verifiable rather than just the opinion of the editor(s) who put the article together. So for instance, saying "Zoe is a smart, attractive, confident girl who is very much a tomboy." is questionable, because my immediate response is "according to who?"
 * ✅There are a couple of places in this section that don't discriminate as much as they should between the character and the actress. Make sure you focus on Zoe Carpenter, for instance, explaining that Maxim deemed the character a tomboy, but saving details about Lister slumming in her jeans for the article on the actress. Same with the dizzy blonde bit - explain that Lister thinks her character is street smart, but save public reaction to the actress personally for Lister's article.
 * ✅"Lister stated in a separate interview that she believes her character is having a break from men in order to sort out her problems" - it would help to give this some context, such as the date the interview occurred. Reading it now, when the character has left the show, it's dated information that doesn't mean much at all without some idea of chronology.


 * Early storylines
 * ✅ "One of Zoe's first and main storylines was being stocked" - I'm assuming from the lead this should be 'stalked'?
 * It's rather repetitive to paraphrase Lister deeming the storyline her most memorable, and then include the direct quote where she says the same thing. I would either paraphrase or quote, and note that when she starts talking about not having seen one of her co-stars in a while, again you're drifting from focusing on the character, not the actress.
 * ✅Again, giving some context to this fire safety promotion would be helpful, even if it's just reordering the sentence to explain: "During a fire safety promotion undertaken with co-star Lena Kaur, Lister referenced the storyline, commenting: "It's much easier to test your smoke alarm once a week and plan your escape from fire than it is to escape from a psycho!" You don't, of course, have to use my suggested wording, just make sure that a reader without intimate knowledge of the subject can follow things clearly.
 * ✅"Lister advised producers of British soap opera Coronation Street to write a lesbian storyline" - not directly relevant to the character, although it goes on to be. I'd suggest just skipping to the part where Lister said she would like a lesbian storyline in Hollyoaks.
 * ✅"Speaking to entertainment news website Digital Spy" - aha, this is exactly the sort of context I was suggesting in the Creation section. If you go back and describe what Digital Spy is on first mention, then you won't need to do so here.


 * Imprisonment and exit
 * ✅"After the announcement of Zoë Lister's departure" - given that you've been talking about and quoting Lister all the way through, you don't need to call her by her full name in the middle of the article.
 * ✅Stacked references again. This one seems to just be illustrating the first Digital Spy story, so I'd drop that. I'd use Digital Spy as the primary source, but glancing through the Sky interview, there seem to be things discussed there that it would be beneficial to include in this section to expand its scope a bit. You go from talking about Lister leaving to talking about Zoe's imprisonment without fully touching on the skydiving storyline. As it is, I would have to read the "Storylines" section to understand what happened there, when there seems to be a lot of real-world content in the Sky interview pertaining to the sky diving incident that you could include.
 * ✅When a quote runs for over three lines, as the one beginning "It wasn't difficult in a lot of ways..." does, it helps to break up the text if you use cquote or a Quote box. There are a couple of other very lengthy quotes in this section, so if you could try and paraphrase some a bit, that would also help to improve readability.


 * Storylines
 * ✅ This is the area of the article that, at present, I think needs the most work. Plot summaries should ideally be succinct, giving a concise overview of the character's time on the show, without going into excessive, intricate detail. At present, the storylines section is almost 2,000 words long, and the character was only part of the show for just over 3 years. The best way to condense it down is to consider the most salient points and summarise them, rather than giving a blow by blow of everything that happened. For example, one of the first paragraphs reads:


 * Grieving Zoe rejects advances from Will Hackett. She attempts to regain her confidence and agrees to pose nude for Foz (Benjamin Hart)'s art class. Zoe has a brief relationship with Zak Ramsey (Kent Riley), which is sabotaged by jealous Will. Zoe decides to leave for New York City for a year due to her Film Studies. Will lies about the death of a former girlfriend, hoping Zoe will feel enough sorrow for him that she will stay. When she prepares to leave, he steals her passport, however Zak returns it to her. In an attempt to stop her, Will violently slams Zoe's hand in a taxi door which breaks it, stopping her from leaving. Will sets up a web-cam in Zoe's room in order to spy on her. Jealous when Zoe gets closer to Zak, Will drugs her and makes it look like a suicide attempt. Zak and Kris find the web-cam files of Zoe on Will's laptop and they start to worry for her safety. Zoe decides to stay with her parents, but she forgets her train ticket. She goes back for them and walks into Will's room and sees him watching a web-cam video of her crying. Will locks her in his room and when she tries to escape, she punches him. Will violently twists Zoe's broken hand before tying and gagging her in the bathroom. Will drags Zoe up onto the college roof, where he leaves her dangling off the edge. Zak sees her, rushes up and calls the police. Will tells Zoe he loves her and eventually lets her go. Will is then arrested. Zoe, traumatised, leaves to stay with her parents. Zoe returns in May 2007. Her father Graham turns up and gives Zak a lecture. Zak then convinces him to let her stay at college.


 * This entire section could be summarised as: After rejecting the advances of Will Hackett, Zoe is abused and manipulated by him. He stops Zoe from leaving to study in New York City, resorting to stealing her passport and breaking her hand. He spies on her via web-cam, and drugs her, making it look like a suicide attempt. When Zoe discovers that Will has been spying on her, he ties her up on the college roof and confesses his love for her. Will eventually lets Zoe go and is arrested. A traumatised Zoe leaves to stay with her parents.


 * There's no set word limit for storyline summaries, but as a rough guide I think it would be possible to get this down to somewhere in the region of 500 words. At the very least, I'd ideally like to see it reduced by a third.


 * Reception
 * ✅ I'm not sure reference 36, pointing at 'Popsugar' is a suitable source. The website seems to be part of a string of blogs. The same information is in the Digital Spy reference, however, so it's no loss if you just remove the Popsugar one.
 * ✅ "Gutted" is rather colloquial - "disappointed" or similar would sound more encyclopaedic.
 * There's an absence of critical commentary in this section. Have TV reviewers never commented on the character, either positively or negatively? It's stated that one of her storylines was controversial, are there any sources actually discussing it you could include?


 * References
 * ✅ These are mostly fine, but there are quite a few instances of publication names being listed beside the 'publisher' parameter instead of 'work'. As I mentioned, publication names eg Heat, and the Daily Mail should always be italicized, and listing them under the 'work' parameter will automatically do this for you.
 * Can you please list the number of the references that have this issue and I shall fix them.Mephiston999 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sincere apologies, I missed this comment until now. The references in question are 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 29 and 36. Thank you for all the work you've done so far. Frickative  15:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ There are a lot of instances of the 'author' parameter being filled with 'On-line reporter'. The cite web template actually advices leaving this blank when the specific author is unknown.


 * Images
 * ✅The fair-use rationales need work. The infobox image has no purpose listed whatsoever, and though the source is listed as 'Hollyoaksbabes.Net', the licensing says its a screenshot, which means the copyright holder will be Channel 4. The summary needs to reflect this. The kiss image gives its purpose as illustrating and detailing a storyline. Do readers need to see a picture of two women kissing to understand that the character had a lesbian storyline? Per the non-free content guideline, a non-free image should only be included "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you feel this is the case with both of these images, the rationales need to be strengthened. My advice if you need a guide for this would be to look at the rationales of images included in featured articles. They're not all brilliant, as some were promoted long ago, but some good examples of strong rationales are File:Meet Kevin Johnson.png, File:SouthPark-Volcano.jpg and File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg.

I appreciate that this probably seems like a lot, but I personally always find detailed reviews more helpful than general ones, which might give you an idea of what needs work, but not so much on how to go about implementing improvements. A number of these points are actually very minor and I think can be quickly taken care of, so I'm happy to place the article on hold for you to work on it.

To summarise the main points here:

1. Well written?: Mostly the case, many of the above points are minor spelling and sentence structure issues that can be easily addressed. The big one is the "Storylines" section, which is the part of the article which requires the most work.

2. Factually accurate?: Yes. If anything, the article errs towards being extremely so, with multiple stacked references for non-contentious points.

3. Broad in coverage?: For the most part, however as mentioned it would be beneficial to expand the "Development" section with information on the skydiving storyline, and if possible the "Reception" section with some critical commentary.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, bar the slight WP:OR issue mentioned at the start of the "Personality" section.

5. Article stability?: Fine.

6. Images?: Rationales need to be improved as detailed.

I hope my comments prove useful, and if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at any time. Best of luck with the article. Frickative 05:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to User:Mephiston999 for the work undertaken on the article so far. A week has passed since it was placed on hold, and some of the most major issues with the article have yet to be addressed. The "Storyline" section is still an excessive length, with intricate detail, the problem areas where focus drifts from the character to the actress still need remedying, as does the OR issue with the "Personality" section. I would still like to see some expansion on the skydiving incident and the "Reception" section if possible for broadness of coverage, and the images still breach policy. I've informed the Hollyoaks WikiProject of the hold on the article so that interested editors are aware of the situation. If anyone intends to undertake the work still outstanding in the immediate future, please let me know, and I will be happy to extend the hold while improvements are made. Otherwise, I shall close the review tomorrow and the article will not, at this time, be listed. Frickative  12:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much to Raintheone for addressing all the outstanding concerns so quickly. I've made a few amendments which I'll explain, as the diff makes it seem far more extensive than it really was. Most changes are minor tense and sentence structure tweaking, just to make things flow a little more smoothly. I expanded the lead very slightly by including a sentence of reception information, so that all sections of the article are represented in the overview. There were a few instances where Lister was called by her full name: after the first mention, defaulting to just her surname is preferred. I've put "glam up" in quotes on the assumption that it is a direct quote, as it's a very colloquial turn of phrase. I've excised the sentence "I haven't heard from Ollie [Farnworth] in ages but I'll have to send him a message because it's been too long and he's such a great guy." because, as explained in the above review, it sees focus drifting from the character to the actress. I re-ordered a couple of paragraphs in the "Exit" section, just to instil a sense of chronology, as the article told the reader that the character was imprisoned before explaining the sequence of events that lead up to that.


 * Overall, the storyline section was the one that was still somewhat problematic, but I appreciate that when you've followed a set of storylines over a period of months or years, it can be hard to detach and assess exactly which details are the most important to convey concisely. Good work on cutting it down to nearly half its original length. Stylistically, there were some very short sentences which made for quite fragmented reading - all I've really done there is reordered a detail or two and added in some connectives to try and make it a bit smoother. I took the sentence: "During the fresher's ball, Jessica Harris (Jennifer Biddall) and Zoe have a fight" out entirely, because its relevance wasn't clear, and it seemed to come in the middle of a largely unrelated paragraph. Of course feel free to add it back in, though consider giving some context as to who exactly Jessica is.


 * Thank you also for adding the bit of critical reception to the "Reception" section. I know how scarce reviews can be for British soaps that aren't one of the big three - EastEnders, Coronation Street or Emmerdale - and ultimately it would be unrealistic to expect much more to be added if it outright doesn't exist. Overall, I'm satisfied that the issues raised in my review have been dealt with, and am happy to list the article as a GA. Well done to all who worked on it! In terms of future improvements, consider reducing the amount of the "Imprisonment" section that comes from direct quotes. Try paraphrasing wherever you can, and only relying on quotes when you absolutely couldn't put something across better in your own words. The storyline section has come a long way, but in terms of maintaining the article in future, you could work on trying to condense it further. I suspect there may still be some superfluous detail left - for instance, is it vitally important for the reader to know that Sarah's mother threw Zoe's clothes into the street? Also, if at all possible, you may consider using cite episode to source plot details to the episodes they occurred in, though this isn't of vital importance.


 * I didn't intend for my wrap up to be quite this long-winded, but I hope it proves helpful for development of future articles. Once again, great work from all involved, and congratulations! Frickative  14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: