Talk:Whitney Dean/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is a bit over-written in places. I realize that it's hard to come up with different ways to say "said" but "opined", "disclosed" and the like really don't fit in the context of their use. Constructions like "who later transpired to be Whitney" and "Whitney's school play eventually arrived" don't make sense. I have no idea what "he didn't exactly take the news quite excited as her and this made him feel uncomfortable" means. There is some UK English slang in the article that may not be understood by non-UK people or non-native English speakers. The plot summary needs to be re-written in present tense. Per WP:OVERLINK, de-link common terms like "whore" and "CEO", and each character only needs to be linked once. For instance, the link to Tony King in the development section is not needed and Morgan is linked twice in the same storyline section. There is an extra quotation mark in the last sentence of the development section and in the reception section a quotation mark is needed at the beginning of the second paragraph of the two-paragraph quote. Is there any reason why Whitney's other two siblings are not listed in the infobox?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference list is properly formatted and sources are reliable. "This would mean that he doesn't really want to run away with Whitney as he has moved on to someone else - Lauren Branning." reads like original research. What does the character do or say rather than what might he be thinking?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers creation, development, storyline and reaction while remaining focused on the character and her situation. The storyline section is a bit too detailed and needs to be trimmed of some of the excessive detail. Do we really need to know about the venue of the play for example or that Whitney spread her clothes out on Pat's wall or that Whitney paid for the dog's post-mortem? One detail that needs adding is an explanation of who Lauren Branning is.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Covers reactions to this controversial storyline in an even-handed manner, representing both sides appropriately.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   The article is stable and free from edit-warring.

6. 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):

   It's nit-picky but technically the fair-use rationale is insufficient. Screenshots may be used for identification and critical commentary, not merely illustration. That will need to be updated.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am going to place the article on hold for seven days to allow for these issues to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review! I believe I have addressed most all of the points raised here; I've reduced over-linking within the article, replaced the 'opined's and 'disclosed's with simpler language, fixed the punctuation issues, and re-written the Storyline section in the present tense. I've condensed the last 4 paragraphs of storyline detail into a few lines - I think much of the excessive, not particularly well-written detail was added by IP editors as the relevant episodes aired over the past week or so, and now that the storyline is in the concluding stages, it is easily reduced to just the most salient plot points. In doing so I have hopefully also addressed the WP:OR issue, and have explained the identity of Lauren Branning. I have also expanded the Fair Use Rational and hope that it is now sufficient. The only point that I'm not certain how best to address is that of Whitney's brothers being absent from the infobox. I'm at something of a loss, because they're not related to Whitney by blood or marriage, however the EastEnders infobox has no parameter for adoptive siblings. Do you have any recommendations for how best they might be included? Thanking you! Frickative 15:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If Bianca adopted Whitney then the boys are her brothers (the son of my mother is my brother). I would simply include them as her brothers and note parenthetically that the relationship is adoptive. The article is much improved with the re-write and IMHO an excellent example of how a fictional character article should be written. I'm happy to list it and suggest that you might want to have it peer reviewed with an eye toward featured article status. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, don't know whether I'm aloud to be typing this but anyway. I'm glad this article has been given a GA review as I added the picture and edited the storylines section alot :D lol but anyway in reference to what you said about the brothers thing. I do not know how they would be added as I thought on the case of adoption you only but adoptive parents like Bianca is her adoptive mother and adoptive children like Whitney is listed as her adoptive mother. If the box is changed then it could be fitted in I guess. Alex250P (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)