Talk:Monica Geller/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Great job with the writing overall, it's succinct in general throughout the article. "Copyvio Detector" from GA Toolbox at top right of GA Review subpage here shows result of "Violation Possible 67.0% confidence" -- please trim and or remove and or paraphrase as many quotes as possible in article body text to get this down below 30 percent for those six (6) sources currently above 30 percent confidence for copyvio. Entire huge blockquote in sect Characterization and analysis is too much and bordering on copyvio and needs to be removed, or trimmed aggressively and moved into article body text, or paraphrased.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Characterization and analysis - this type of info could be its own level 2 sect, titled Themes, perhaps. Critical response sect can be its own level 2 sect. Impact and legacy - strongly recommend breaking up into 2 separate sects, Impact and Legacy, in that order, making each their own level 2 sect.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Error reported in References sect - "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name ":40" defined multiple times with different content".
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citation problem at present with external links used in citations per "Checklinks" tool at top right of this subpage in GA Toolbox. At least nine (9) links have problem issues. This can be solved, please, by using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive to archive links with archivedate and archiveurl fields in WP:CIT citation templates.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article reliant primarily upon secondary sources, no issues here upon inspection.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Excellent job here with scope and structural organization and layout, well done !
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A bit of an issue with overall flow for the reader, a couple large paragraphs in a few sects. Consider breaking up paragraphs in lede intro sect to four paragraphs total, per WP:LEAD, with a bit more concise wording and structure, perhaps no more than four sentences per paragraph.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is indeed neutral with a great job done on the lede intro sect in this regard, well done here !
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I'm seeing constructive collaboration going on between editors upon inspection of article history including editors Checkingfax and Changedforbetter. Please keep an eye on random IP edits. Otherwise, looks okay here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Monica's apartment.jpg - please flesh out fair use rationale under the Purpose of use in article sect on image page, you can see a model I used at The Land of Gorch image in the infobox to argue why it is fair use rationale using numbered list. File:Courteney Cox as Monica Geller.jpg - this image can be deleted, as it adds no added value to article because we have alternative free-use images both in article at present and in Commons category at commons:Category:Courteney Cox.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please add in-line citations to the two images in body text to back up factual assertions made in this captions. Last image in article of the apartment is too low down towards References sect and breaking up the page. Suggest moving it higher up in article body text and to the right side.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed as GA on Hold for a period of time roughly equivalent to seven days. — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written – DONE

• Done. I actually really like the idea of "Characterization and analysis" being its own section; would you settle for "Characterization and themes" perhaps? I think it's important to make that distinction, since the section really does more-so deal with her personality.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Done. "Reception" heading removed; "Critical response" changed to "Critical reception", and upped one to level 2 heading.
• Done. "Impact and legacy" upped one to level 2 heading. However, in the context of this article, the impact and legacy content generally overlaps. In loose summary, the section generally discusses the character's influence on neurotic, bossy women in modern-day comedy, the popularity of Monica's outfits, the effect Monica has had on Cox's career, and the mark left by and debate revolving around Monica's home. At this point, it is nearly impossible to decipher which is impact and which is legacy – in my articles, I tend to use the terms interchangeably – therefore I suggest leaving the heading as is. Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've done so far, it looks much better! But there's still several more things to address, above. Thanks for your changes, the article looks much improved thanks to your modifications, — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Copyvio Detector results looks much better, just 3 sources quoted a bit too much, at this link -- http://www.vulture.com/2013/11/friends-monica-chandler-how-writers-paired-them-off.html and -- http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-18/entertainment/ca-14208_1_courteney-cox -- and http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119434/friends-20th-anniversary-nbc-sitcoms-legacy -- latest results at -- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Monica+Geller&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- Try to trim quotes from those 3 sources down below 30 percent. — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Done.I've managed to reduce all direct quotes to under 30%...all except one, that is, which continues to hover just above 31%. In the article, the quote reads, "Also writing for the Los Angeles Times, Glenn Whipp extolled Cox's tenure on Friends, enthusing that the actress successfully 'took a character loaded with obsessive-compulsive quirks and a goofy, overly competitive nature and fashioned a flesh-and-blood woman". Describing the actress' comic timing as 'impeccable', Whipp went on to write that Cox 'brought out Monica's insecurities in a way that turned self-deprecation into an art form'." I feel that this quote is such an eloquently worded review of Cox's performance I don't know what to remove. Are we able to let this one slide perhaps? Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's marvelous, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR POLITE RESPONSIVENESS ON THIS MATTER, IT IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR !!! :) — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome!--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research

• Done. "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name ":40" defined multiple times with different content" solved by another editor.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks better. Still seeing issues with Checklinks tool http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Monica_Geller -- recommended how to fix those, above. Recommend archiving all hyperlinks, but at least those nine (9) problem ones. — Cirt (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. As the Wayback Machine wasn't able to detect previous versions of those links, I simply removed them; also, I only found issues with about three or four, which I eliminated.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

• Done. Lede divided into four paragraphs: introduction of Monica, who she is and her general arc throughout the series; followed by casting and development; themes, "mother hen" role in the series and Cox's initial identification as the show's "lead actress"; and lastly reception and impact.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks much better here. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Done captions under both images properly cited; apartment image re-positioned to be nearer to the topical paragraph.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Courteney Cox as Monica Geller.jpg -- still think this image can be removed and replaced by a free-use one (perhaps from same approximate time period, or more contemporary but higher resolution, either way) with one from commons:Category:Courteney Cox. — Cirt (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My issue is that none of the images in that category actually depict the character "Monica"; they are all simply free use candid shots of Cox appearing as herself. If free use is your concern, might I possibly be able to replace it with this one instead https://www.flickr.com/photos/62038770@N04/5879263583/ ?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that flickr image is also not free-use, unfortunately. But alright, your argumentation is sound -- perhaps just please add a lot more to the image page arguing in detail why there is no free-use alternative of a picture of the character. — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Also, "Purpose of use in article" section for the image "Monica's apartment" fleshed out; thanks for the reference you provided :-). Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Infobox image of Monica "Purpose" section also fleshed out.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Checklinks problems

http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Monica_Geller

Still shows twenty (20) problems with hyperlinks.

Problem defined as = anything other than a "0" or "200" rating, or even a "200" rating with a comment next to it would need to be addressed.

Once those are archived by the Wayback Machine to the Internet Archive with WP:CIT fields archiveurl and archivedate, that issue should be resolved. — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhhh okay gotcha.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Started repairing some of the links. However, about three of them (so far) return with a result similar to this. Suggestions?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you try just clicking "Save this url in the Wayback Machine" ? — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well it took a few tries, but I finally got it to work using that method. I think I took care of all of them :-). Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Given some thought to the suggestion number 3, above, which is optional only but just to consider as a way to pay it forward ?
2. Article lede intro sect looks pretty good.
3. Image placement and justification is better now.
4. Checklinks tool -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Monica_Geller -- shows one outstanding problem at -- The lasting impact of your favorite 'Friends' (info) [diamondbackonline.com]
5. Copyvio Detector -- looks pretty good --- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Monica+Geller&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- good job here !
6. Article flow looks a bit better.
7. Looks much better without the blockquotes.
8. Role - totally unsourced sect -- would be best to source this to ideally secondary sourced citations, and worst case, primary citations to episodes.

That's about it for now, hopefully should need just one more revisit and that'll be all. — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Changedforbetter, can you please move your reply so it's below all my comments in this subsection? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Done. Will likely review two or three fictional character or Disney-related articles in the near future.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Done--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

4. *The Diamondback Online link gives me this when I attempt to archive it; there isn't even an option to save. Suggestions?--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Done.

5. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

7. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

8. Done. Inserted secondary sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:51, 19

I guess that source is okay as I checked the link myself. But it could be a problem if it goes dead in the future. Can you respond to my other queries, above, please? — Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)