Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dimitri Marick/1

Dimitri Marick

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Dimitri_Marick/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept

I am listing this article for GA reassessment as this article requires major cleanup and expansion. One example is that in most current soap opera good articles, the development section can consist of character creation, relationships the character had, other major storylines which contributed to the character's profile, etc. Until I attempted to clean up the article, there was only a "Writing and portrayal" section, which is really just character creation. From what I read the character had a relationship with soap opera icon Erica Kane (Susan Lucci), there should be development information on that as well as other romances or storylines he may have encountered. All this is to say is that work needs to be done on the article, and that its current state does not meet the good article criteria.  Creativity  97  21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I stated here, how does its current state not meet the WP:GA criteria? It's mostly the same as it was the day it was elevated to WP:GA status. You made this edit to the article, and a few others, including having added this copyedit tag to it. The article "missing" some information you feel should be in the article does not mean that it does not satisfy the WP:GA status. Considering that the editor who brought this article to WP:GA status, Rocksey, has not been on Wikipedia under her Rocksey account or at all since February 15, 2012, it would be better to send her an email about this WP:GA reassessment instead of just the message you left on her talk page about it.


 * There is already information in the article about Dimitri's relationship with Erica Kane; the article points readers to the Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick article for in-depth information on that; there is no need to repeat a good deal of information about that relationship in the Dimitri Marick article. There is no requirement that any character article needs information about the development of the character's romances so that the article can meet WP:GA status. Not at the time the Dimitri Marick article was made into a WP:GA article, and not now. Furthermore, real-world information about the development of romances on soap operas, especially American soap operas, is difficult to come by and is other times non-existent. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything Flyer22 said, I see no immediate pressing issues, that can't easily be fixed.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, in my message to Rocksey, I said I didn't know how active they were given their contribution history. I didn't know I was supposed to send them an email, so I left them a message regardless of their account activity. And other than in reception, there isn't much information on Dimitri's relationship with Erica in this article. Because their relationship was clearly notable enough to warrant a supercouple page, there should at least be a condensed version of the information on their supercouple page in this article, my opinion. There are quite a few examples of this around; just because their is a supercouple page for a pair, doesn't mean we just don't post any information about them in their own respective articles. All I'm trying to say here, and all I ever wanted to say when bringing up this issue, is that the article needs a significant amount of work, let alone a good, thorough copyedit. Excuse me for saying it doesn't meet the good article criteria. In comparing it to other high quality soap opera articles, this doesn't include a lot of information in development other than character creation, that's all I'm saying. In conclusion, the article needs to be worked on.  Creativity  97  01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that you had to send an email; I stated that it would have been better for you to send an email in addition to posting on her talk page about this WP:GA reassessment. To partially reiterate, the article is mostly the same as it was the day it passed as GA...except for your changes to the article (such as this first one)...and it should not have been nominated for WP:GA reassessment just because you feel that there should be some development information for some "other romances or storylines [Dimitri] may have encountered." You used "may" because you clearly are not sure if there have been any other storylines worth documenting in this article. Like I stated, this article already has information about his relationship with Erica Kane; the in-depth information about it is at the Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick article. We only need a summary of that relationship in this article (Dimitri Marick). See WP:Summary style and WP:Content forking; we should avoid duplicating content when duplication is not needed, and we should especially avoid duplicating a lot of material unless the duplication is needed. You want this article to include a summary of the development of his relationship with Erica; I don't disagree with such an inclusion. As for storylines/romances outside of Dimitri's relationship with Erica, it's very likely that there is no significant real-world information about other Dimitri Marick storylines besides the ones mentioned in the Dimitri Marick article; I stated above that "real-world information about the development of romances on soap operas, especially American soap operas, is difficult to come by and is other times non-existent"; the same applies to the general soap opera storylines, which is why it's been difficult for a lot of soap opera articles to be expanded beyond plot and is therefore why a lot of soap opera character and couple articles have been deleted...besides editors deleting the articles because they see no WP:Notability in the articles (and fail to look for WP:Notability for them). Some WP:GA and WP:FA articles of the same genre are more developed than others; it doesn't make one GA article better than the other, for example. Some simply have more real-world content to build the article on. Though cleanup usually goes on in WP:GA reassessment, WP:GA reassessment is not for article cleanup, and I see no cleanup or copyediting issues that make this article not of WP:GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On a side note, one of your changes to the article messed up what is currently reference #41; that needs to be fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I changed the article's set-up to match other soap opera pages. What was formerly listed as "Writing and portrayal" under a "Background" section is now development, so I changed it to make the article look more updated and resemble other soap pages. I used "may" because I never watched the original All My Children a day in my life, so I have no idea what storylines the Dimitri character was involved in throughout his run. It was not because the character doesn't have enough major storylines to document in development; I would appreciate it if you don't assume that I meant something else from what I actually said. I just thought that significant work needed to be done on the article, and a discussion needed to take place to see what type of work needed to be done on it to see if it still warrants its GA title (which you have proved on many occasions that it does). And from reading through it, it needs a good copyedit, which is why I tagged the article with "needs copy editing". Clearly you have deemed this discussion pointless, so I guess it will be closed soon.  Creativity  97  03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relax. I don't care why you changed the design of the article; I was simply noting that the article is mostly the same as it was the day it passed as GA; the exceptions are small changes since then, including your changes. While the WP:GA standard has shown itself to become stricter as the years go on, the WP:GA standard is not based on anything you have stated in this WP:GA reassessment, except for the fact that copyediting is a staple of WP:GA assessment. It was clear why you used the word may, as you have also confirmed that you are not sure if there have been any other storylines worth documenting in this article; there was not much assuming going on when I noted your use of may. As for thinking that significant work needed to be done on the article, there is WP:Peer review and (as you know) there is WP:SOAPS that can be contacted to weigh in on peer review or on the article's talk page about what can be done, or if anything should be done, to improve an article. Again, WP:GA reassessment is not for article cleanup. I realize that my tone, when commenting on article content, policies or guidelines, on Wikipedia can sometimes come off as strict and/or cold, but I usually don't mean any offense by it. In cases like this one, it's that I am protective of WP:GA and WP:FA articles, especially ones that I don't view as needing demoting, and especially in the case of soap opera articles because we have relatively few WP:GA and WP:FA examples in that regard. I'm not sure what you mean by "you have proved on many occasions that [this article still warrants its GA title]"; I haven't proved that on many occasions, including in this discussion. It's my opinion that it is still of WP:GA status, as what is a WP:GA article is often subject to opinion. Others may feel differently than me about this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All I meant by "you have proved on many occasions that [this article still warrants its GA title]" was that you believe the article still of WP:GA status. Apologies for the poor choice of words. And I also apologize for using WP:GA reassessment for article cleanup, I guess I didn't read its description quite right. And yes, there is peer review for other cleanup. Looking back now, I suppose the article just needs a copyedit, and I was sort of wrong for beginning this discussion here. And also, just recently, we reached 9 good articles for American daytime soaps, including Dimitri. Hopefully we can get that number to keep rising. We can wait for further comments on this matter, but otherwise, I think this discussion can be closed soon.  Creativity  97  04:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Good article reassessment, criteria #3, states, "Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing."


 * No need to apologize to me or others for nominating this article for WP:GA reassessment; it's understandable how a person could nominate an article for such after seeing what they view as problems in the article. And it's not like you created some horrible offense. I apologize if I came off harsh, which it appears that I did. In my 03:38 comment above, I meant to add that I greatly appreciate all the hard work you have done on soap opera articles. We seriously need more editors like you and some of the other soap opera editors who significantly improve these articles beyond plot. And as WP:SOAPS is on my watchlist, and I started watching my watchlist again this year, I'm aware that we have more articles that are WP:GA articles. I didn't pay attention to the exact number, so thanks for telling me the number. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology, and many thanks for your kind words. I'm hoping to get the number of GAs for U.S. soaps to keep rising, it means that soap pages are improving. There are also numerous GAs for British/Australian soaps as well. It doesn't seem as anyone is going to comment here on this matter, do you think it can be closed?  Creativity  97  14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that there are significantly more British WP:GA and WP:FA articles; one of the editors responsible for that is Raintheone, who you have surely seen at WP:SOAPS from time to time. And, yeah, if you think no one else is likely to comment in this WP:GA reassessment, I see no problem with closing it. As you very likely saw, you did receive an additional comment on the matter, though, at WP:SOAPS, and so more people may weigh in on the topic there or here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm closing the discussion now. Anyone who has any further comments can post them on the WP:SOAPS talk page.  Creativity  97  03:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)