Talk:The O.C./GA1
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
GA Review[edit]
Criteria[edit]
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review[edit]
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Most of the prose is pretty good, but unfortunately the article is so large that a lot needs additional work before it meets GA criteria. The prose is generally clear and usually concise with some notable exceptions.
Clarity is sometimes an issue when editors are trying to write too concisely. There are a few instances of this problem in the article. An early one is found in the "Plot" section. In season 3, are Seth and Summer vying for the same spot at Brown, or two different spots? In "Cast and Characters", Marissa does not leave "the series at the end of season three when her character was subsequently written off by being killed in a car accident". This sentence is impossible. It implies that Marissa leaves the series before her character was killed. Being written off is an extraneous detail, and is implied because the events happen in the show's diegetic world. It should read something like "Barton left the show at the end of season three when her character was killed in a car accident". Some editors seem to be using words because they like the way they sound without knowing quite what they mean. In the second season synopsis, Marissa's relationships are described as "tumultuous", but are they? The literal meaning of this word is close to excited, confused, or disorderly. The writer seems to mean something closer to "dysfunctional". Under "Cast and Characters" Ryan forms "fast bonds" with other characters. Is this supposed to mean he forms bonds quickly (implied) or that he forms strong bonds (as written)? Watch out for this stuff. Just because it sounds good doesn't mean it's right, or clear, or improves the article. The article is unnecessarily wordy at times. In the synopsis of season three, Sandy's "moral compass becomes imperilled" and Ryan "attempts to resolve his individual relationships". The first sentence means that Sandy's (metaphorical) moral compass is in danger, while the second throws an "individual" in there for the hell of it. In plain english, Sandy's morals are challenged, while Ryan sorts out his personal life (demons?). Seth is described as "the awkward adolescent son of Sandy and Kirsten". The adjective "adolescent" is redundant. Seth is the same age as Ryan, Summer, or Marissa. Seth should be "Sandy's and Kirsten's awkward son". There seems to be a lot of confusion in the article about how possessives work. Possessives help us escape the "the / of" construction. Instead of "the husband of Kirsten" or "the wife of Sandy", concision demands "Kirsten's husband" and "Sandy's wife". Four words become two. Again, just because it sounds more formal doesn't mean it's better writing. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list every problem. Be assured there are quite a few, and most take the general forms listed above. Don't assume I've found everything. After my fourth reading, I was still finding new issues. |
 Fail
|
| (b) (MoS) | The lead is well written and concise, but incomplete. All it needs is mention of the show's role as musical tastemaker.
Layout is a problem. "Themes and other characteristics" is a generic section and acts as a dumping ground whenever an editor thinks something merits inclusion but doesn't know where else to put it. It needs to be split into "Themes", and probably a second section like "Cultural impact" which should include thinks like Chrismukkah, Music, discussion of fandom, spinoffs, books, and maybe even critical reception (as a sub section). Even the title of this section sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, how is the character list organized? Either list by first appearance or alphabetically by actor, or character name. Trying to rate minor characters is too finicky and prone to bias. Get past it by splitting the list into core cast and recurring minor characters, or by following a rigid organizational scheme. Most of the content of "Complementary media" is so minor in importance I question whether it merits inclusion on the encyclopedia, and should maybe be reduced to a list at the bottom of the article. Due to many, many missing citations, the article has a major problem with words to watch. Any time a word like (but not limited to) "frequently", "often", "many" or "widely" is used, be prepared to back it up with citation. On their own, these are weasel words and under no circumstances should they be used they way they are in this article. For instance, if a sentence starts "She is often characterized" (Julie Cooper, "Cast and Characters"), that claim needs to be backed by three or more citations, or removed immediately. This happens a lot in the article; again, there are too many instances to list, and I kept noticing more. |
Fail
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | While many, many claims are supported by surprisingly detailed citation, many more go uncited. Specifically, if a claim is made about the plot of the show, the episode in which that event takes place must be cited. In short: prove it or lose it. The most egregious offenders here are the entire "Plot" and "Cast and characters" sections. | Fail
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | Admirably, the many citations rely primarily on well-respected, free, and electronically available sources. Bravo. However, there are many glaring omissions. As a rule, any time you use quotation marks, cite your source. Until everything is cited, I can't pass the article in this section. | Fail
|
| (c) (original research) | Until I see citations for everything, I can't be sure. What is cited is backed up very well. | Fail
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The article is remarkably thorough in what it chooses to cover, but does not adequately cover everything included in the article. Chief offender here is the "Themes and other characteristics" section. Far too much space is devoted to "other characteristics", while little effort is given to explicate the various themes mentioned. If a theme is important to the show, where is it important? I agree that the major themes should be covered in the article, but coverage should be cited and expanded somewhat. Removal of the section entirely would mean the article would fail to cover all of the major aspects. I would be satisfied with a more thorough explication of three of four of the more important themes, say, Social class, Hope, Emotional insecurity, and Drug addiction. | Fail
|
| (b) (focused) | I am concerned by the number of characters the article mentions but fails to describe. At various points, the article mentions Anna, Oliver, D.J., Lindsay Gardner, Zach, Alex Kelly, Trey, Theresa Diaz, Dawn Atwood. These characters are either important enough to mention, or not important enough to be listed in the Cast and characters section, but not both. | Fail
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Unless there's a secret cache of negative opinion somewhere on the internet, the article does a good job of representing critical opinion of the show during its run. The show was a pop cultural phenomenon with a large fan base. The article reflects this reality. |  Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| There have been several edits, some major, since the article was nominated for GA status. None of these seem to be the result of an edit war, and most of them appear to improve the article. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Everything is fine save the picture of the DVD set in "Media releases", which does not have an adequate fair use rationale. The image needs to be updated with a fair use rationale before it can pass GA criteria. | Fail
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Captions and images are appropriate. | Pass
|
Result[edit]
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Fail |
Too much needs to happen before this article can be passed to warrant holding it. Characters that are necessary to mention in the plot sections must also appear in the characters section. Episode citations are almost entirely absent, and a major copyedit needs to be done. Several dead links need fixing. Weasel words are rampant. The article needs to be reorganized, and every section needs to have a reason for being where it is in the article. Consider splitting the character section into major and minor character sections, and creating a new cultural impact section for things like music, merchandise, fandom, and critical reception. A lot of work has gone into this version, but a lot more needs to happen before it meets GA criteria. Good luck. Please re-nominate the article when the problems have been addressed. Thank you. |
Discussion[edit]
Please add any related discussion here.
Additional Notes[edit]
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 22:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)