Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steph Cunningham/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:42, 26 March 2011 [1].
Steph Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the subject matter is notable, a lot of work has been put into this article over time. I feel it's potential and believe it meets the requirements. I think fictional characters can be subject to a number of issues. We have made it broad in coverage, made sure it is not biased by including big contribuations from an editor who was not familiar with the subject. Followed the MoS really closely. Also we have kept things brief, there is sometimes the temptation, to include information that only a fan would see useful, so we've cut that out.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- File:Steph_Cunningham_(Hollyoaks).jpg: need more information. What season/episode did the screenshot come from? Who owns the copyright to the show?
- This has just been added, it's not part of the nomination.90.215.255.53 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That image was added after the nomination like stated above, not relevant here. It has been removed now anyway. It was a non-free screenshot, which is not acceptable for FA. There was no point adding it back and adding a rationale.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
- Reference formatting should be more consistent
Newspaper references without web links should have page numbers- What makes this a reliable source?
Spotchecks not done yet, will try to do later. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The locations will be removed, they are not meant to be there, as we don't know the location for some, therefore non will be added. There are no newspaper ref's without weblinks, so not sure what you mean there. Lowculture is a popular culture website that was once taken to the reliable sources notice board and deemed fair. If they should be more consistent in formatting, then how?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake on the newspaper refs, thought I saw a couple but can't find any now. Could you provide a link to the RSN discussion you mention? As to the formatting issue, there are multiple inconsistencies. For example, compare ""Carley Stenson - Steph Cunningham in Hollyoaks". Chester Chronicle. (Trinity Mirror). 22 September 2010. Retrieved 2 November 2010." to "Johnson, Emma (26 August 2003). "Steph does her TV homework; Emma Johnson sees how Hollyoaks deals with epilepsy". Liverpool Echo. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 4 March 2011." to "Brown, Merle (2 November 2002). "Soap watch: Sick Scott wallows in being shallow; Emmerdale". Daily Record. Glasgow, Scotland: Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 4 March 2011." - these three citations should be formatted in the same way. This is an example of inconsistency to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All publishers are cited the same way now, there are no locations anymore. I can't find that. Seems legit, seems to have recieved media attention and praised by The Gaurdian newspaper. What's your view?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern about the site is it seems to be a blog (hosted by WordPress, anyways), there's no contact info ("contact us" page is broken) and no author bio (the "about us" page is quite uninformative), and there's no real way to tell from the site itself why it would meet WP:RS. Do you have more information about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't, I just noticed it's always been used and is in a few GA articles. Other than the mentions from the reputable news ppublications, I'd be at a loss. Anyway, I set up a new thread at reliable sources, if the deem it not fit I'll remove it for sure. Are the refs okay now btw? (I think I got it right?)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. A couple with issues (27 and 51), otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are? Should the archive date be alone in ref 51 and not have an accessdate? Not sure what is wrong with 27 though..RAIN*the*ONE BAM 03:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 27 is a single-page ref and should thus use "p." instead of "pp."; 51 should not italicize "Press Association". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that is now fixed.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lowculture reception has been removed following light discussion at the sources noticeboard.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that is now fixed.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 27 is a single-page ref and should thus use "p." instead of "pp."; 51 should not italicize "Press Association". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are? Should the archive date be alone in ref 51 and not have an accessdate? Not sure what is wrong with 27 though..RAIN*the*ONE BAM 03:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. A couple with issues (27 and 51), otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't, I just noticed it's always been used and is in a few GA articles. Other than the mentions from the reputable news ppublications, I'd be at a loss. Anyway, I set up a new thread at reliable sources, if the deem it not fit I'll remove it for sure. Are the refs okay now btw? (I think I got it right?)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern about the site is it seems to be a blog (hosted by WordPress, anyways), there's no contact info ("contact us" page is broken) and no author bio (the "about us" page is quite uninformative), and there's no real way to tell from the site itself why it would meet WP:RS. Do you have more information about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All publishers are cited the same way now, there are no locations anymore. I can't find that. Seems legit, seems to have recieved media attention and praised by The Gaurdian newspaper. What's your view?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake on the newspaper refs, thought I saw a couple but can't find any now. Could you provide a link to the RSN discussion you mention? As to the formatting issue, there are multiple inconsistencies. For example, compare ""Carley Stenson - Steph Cunningham in Hollyoaks". Chester Chronicle. (Trinity Mirror). 22 September 2010. Retrieved 2 November 2010." to "Johnson, Emma (26 August 2003). "Steph does her TV homework; Emma Johnson sees how Hollyoaks deals with epilepsy". Liverpool Echo. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 4 March 2011." to "Brown, Merle (2 November 2002). "Soap watch: Sick Scott wallows in being shallow; Emmerdale". Daily Record. Glasgow, Scotland: Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 4 March 2011." - these three citations should be formatted in the same way. This is an example of inconsistency to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sourcing issues have been addressed, although I haven't done spotchecks for close paraphrasing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecks/WP:V
- Quotes in lead need to be cited
- the Daily Record's Merle Brown referred to her as "a true red-blooded female,[10] - where does this quote end?
- Some inaccuracies, spelling errors, etc in direct quotes - check for accuracy
- My spotchecks turned up multiple instances of overly close paraphrasing. Examples: "It has been my dream job for ten years and I shall miss all of the fantastic friends I have made in the cast and crew" vs "Hollyoaks had been her "dream job" and that she would miss her friends in the cast and crew"; "the episode's director, who had witnessed seizures first-hand, having once worked in a hospital" vs "the director had witnessed them first hand. He used to work in a hospital"; "she had previously been the only actress in the village." vs "she's been the only actress in the village"
- I also found several instances where material in the text is not supported by the cited source. For example, "When his younger brother Tom (Ellis Hollins) developed a crush on her, the "kind, sensitive way" Steph handled it altered his impression, with Littler explaining: "Max begins to realise there's more to her than her looks. He begins to think she's actually really nice and they become friends."" is cited to this story which doesn't say any of what it's supposed to support; similarly, "This inspired a rivalry with fellow budding actor Summer Shaw (Summer Strallen), which saw Steph "determined to keep the limelight on her."" is cited to this, which does not include that information.
Oppose unless/until these issues are addressed. Note also that the above are examples only, not a comprehensive list of all verifiability problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this beautifully written article, and fantastic read. A lot of work has gone into it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I haven't got past the lead. Poor quality prose and unclear, poorly structured lead, which doesn't explain who the character is in relation to the programme, or why the character is notable. This is poor quality for a GA, and if there were not this FA nomination in hand, I would bring this to a community GAR. SilkTork *YES! 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a GA review this does not appear to be thorough enough, and this came just three days after what appears to be a very exacting and detailed review in which the decision was not to list. SilkTork *YES! 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was failed because I requested it to be. So it would recieve a fair review. However that reviews points were adressed the next day and the article recieved a major copy edit, excluding the lead.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a GA review this does not appear to be thorough enough, and this came just three days after what appears to be a very exacting and detailed review in which the decision was not to list. SilkTork *YES! 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
