Talk:Dot Cotton/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a few suggestions to make for improving the article before it passes/fails GA.

It mentions in the article "To Dot's dismay, Dotty is retrieved by her mother following various devious deeds." What "various devious deeds" are these? What did Dotty do? Some expansion (though not much) would be good on this. DoneGunGagdin^Moan 15:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 29 needs replacing, when I click on the link it says that the user has deleted their account so the information is no longer there. DoneGunGagdin ^Moan 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 95 needs replacing, it no longer seems to talk about smoking.

Done Frickative 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 73 - can we get a reliable source to confirm this? At the minute reference 71 is IMDB, as WP:RS states, IMDB is classed as a self-published source and is largely not acceptable.{{done}] removed cos we cant find refs GunGagdin^Moan 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 67 needs replacing as it now directs to a BBC Mobile page. DoneGunGagdin ^Moan 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References 58, 57 Done removed the urlsGunGagdin ^Moan 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

55 all need replacing as all are now dead links.

Reference 54 needs replacing, it says that the book can no longer be located there. Done removed the link, as it's a book and so doesnt really need the google books link as it's fine to have it as just an offline refGunGagdin ^Moan 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back to this in a day or two's time and review it again to give people the chance to work on it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. I'll have a look over the next few days and see if I can get anything to replace the other dead references.--5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do dead links always mean we have to replace the content? Just curious, because with quotes, if the pages get deleted and we have to change the sources, we will lose the quotes wont we? Thinking of Jaci Stephen's stuff in immigration here. The page is deleted and I cant find an updated link in the web to the page.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKROT says not to remove content just because a link has gone dead, but I don't know whether leaving deadlinks in long-term contradicts WP:V. Google has Jaci Stephen's article cached, but Web Cite won't archive it, which isn't helpful. Actually, as it was originally a print source, as long as we've got all the details filled out we could probably just drop the URL and cite the print newspaper. Frickative 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the urls, I dont know what to dabout the macmillan one though. I checked the wayback machine but its not archived. Any ideas?GunGagdin^Moan 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also struggling to find refs for some of the award nominations refd by IMDB - now ref 73.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried several times to replace the IMDb references for awards in the EE awards list to no avail unfortuately. There should be something but... there just isn't. –anemone projectors– 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when 5 Albert Square sees the discussion, she'll have some ideas. I suppose we can remove the ones that cant be referenced and say she has been nominated for awards, and not be specific.GunGagdin ^Moan 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only three nominations that have IMDb has references... it's a shame the NTA website only lists past winners and not past nominees. I just tried again to find sources for the specific awards but there's just nothing. Some of them were on the old EE website but they're gone now. It's a shame because it's messed up the list of EE awards as well! –anemone projectors– 19:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wayback machine caches the EE website, have you got the old links for these refs? PS, what's you thoughts re the images because, dunno if u noticed, but the page has been tagged and they all have been put up for deletion. I deleted some, kept others; nominating user isnt bothering to engage with my changes to the rationales. Any feedback?GunGagdin^Moan 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have one - http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/news/news_20080707.shtml - but it's coming up "Data Retrieval Failure". I saw the tag, didn't know images had been put up for deletion... –anemone projectors– 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dot1985.jpg seems ok to me, so I removed the deletion notice. Dot&jim0.jpg is a more tricky one though I note that the coat she is wearing is one talked about in the article. –anemone projectors– 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Well, the images were tagged for deletion, not given an AFD or whatever the image one is called. and they will be deleted after a week... same user who nommed Kat's early image, and no doubt the images will be put up for deletion if we remove templates, because there's no such thing as compromise for some people and it's their way or no way. I think if this carries on here, I am going off to Walford Web with Trampikey, and writing my articles there instead. It's getting so political here at the moment.U should come too :) GunGagdin^Moan 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely will not do that! But this is about Dot's GA :-) Just one image to sort out and I think mentioning the brown coat is a really good idea. –anemone projectors– 19:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what do u think about the rationale now? I removed template.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Now we need to sort out those awards. –anemone projectors– 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the references for awards, is there nothing apart from IMDB that can be found for backing these up? If no other refs can be found I can only think that we maybe change the section to read that she's been nominated/won x, y and z awards amongst others. That should be ok.--5 albert square (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I removed and will put the sentence on talk page so if a ref comes up it can be put back in. Only outstanding issue now is ref 55, the macmillan cancer ref that is now a dead link. What to do about this? Seems wrong to lose the info.GunGagdin ^Moan 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and find some references for it.--5 albert square (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have managed to find a link on Channel 5's website that at least backs up that Dot was diagnosed with Kidney cancer in 2004. However I can't find anything backing up what that nurse is quoted as saying. Every source I'm finding is getting it's info from Wikipedia! I've tried a Google search, reference search and I can't find it. Seems a shame to lose it though. Anyone else got any ideas?--5 albert square (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a dead link a definite fail for GA then? It seems so silly that they are making it that way. just because the info is no longer on a published site online, that it somehow doesnt count for inclusion, because when it was included it was published. Can we just source to the publisher without linking the URL? GunGagdin^Moan 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the quick fail criteria and it should be ok to source the publisher without linking to the URL.--5 albert square (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great

Done everything should be sorted now.GunGagdin ^Moan 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you passed it as you updated the talk page! –anemone projectors– 22:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]