Talk:Danielle Jones (EastEnders)/GA1

GA Review

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

Comments by Dalejenkins

This article needs MUCH work done to it, but it could be achieved. Strike and {{done}} things that have been achieved and add a comment underneath them if there's any queries. Once all this has been sorted, I'll be back to add more comments. Dalejenkins | 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Any input on this, Dale? It's been over ten days since the review was opened, and nothing can really move on without a response from you. Frickative 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Dale's talk page a couple of weeks ago asking if he intended to continue with this review, which he's now removed without response [1]. Any thoughts on where to go from here? Frickative 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think relist. Hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about will do the review next time.GunGagdin^Moan 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

General

• "Danielle Jones (née Amy Mitchell) is a fictional character" should be "Danielle Jones (née Amy Mitchell) was a fictional character"
  • I'm afraid I disagree with this. Just because the character has left the show doesn't mean she ceases to be a fictional character from the show. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Danielle is and always will be a fictional character, regardless of her on-screen death. Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Weymouth" in the "Creation" section should be wikilinked and "Mitchell Week" should be in italics. Also, who dubbed it "Mitchell Week"? Done
• "Crace accepted the role whilst still in her third year at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art" should be "Crace accepted the role whilst still in her third and final year at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art" to avoid confusion Done
• In the "Creation" section is says "Danielle, would be introduced to EastEnders as the love interest of fellow newcomer Callum Monks...the show's producers attempted to deliberately deceive the audience into believing Danielle was nothing more than a new friend for Stacey Slater". This is a contradiction and "Stacey Slater" should be wikilinked Done

References

• The article relies too heavily on "The Secret Mitchell" source. This is a primary source and more reliable, third party sources should be used instead per WP:RS
  • EastEnders itself is the primary source. "The Secret Mitchell" is a secondary source, and largely the same as using a DVD commentary to supplement the article, used for the most part in discussing the development of storylines. The most insightful information on this is naturally going to come directly from the show's producers/writers/actors, those directly involved in said storylines. Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 7 (BARB) hasn't been formatted Done
• References 18 and 19 (the Soap magazines) should be replaced with more reliable sources - these publications rely on sensationalism to sell issues and bring in viewers, therefore failing WP:RS
  • The references are supporting direct comments from the actor. They're not editorial or opinion pieces but interviews, so I don't see a problem utilising them as a source for this purpose. Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• All references from The Sun or The Mirror should be replaced - they fail WP:RS
  • In all the GAs I've had passed to date, no editor has ever stated that WP:RS discounts usage of the Sun or Mirror. Can you back up this claim? Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Try replacing some of the BBC references with reliable, third-party sources

Thanks for all your effort with this Dale, but I dont think your comments about the references are fair. What evidence is there that the soap mags are unreliable, or the Sun and the Mirror for that matter? Tabloids are permitted as sources per wiki guidelines, and unless the information included is disputed, then there is no reason to suggest that they're unreliable. The Secret Mitchell programme may be a primary source, but it's the best place to get information from the storyline. It's no different than using DVD commentary. If they are giving details about conceptualisation and development, then there is absolutely no reason that it should not be used because they're the ones who created and developed the character; therefore a primary source is appropriate. Better that than speculation from an unrelated media outlet. Just my opinion.GunGagdin^Moan 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Keep just one of the two images of Danielle and Ronnie Done
• Have an image that protrays another aspect of the character's time on the programme (one of Danielle and Stacey or Callum, for instance) Done
• All images should be of MUCH lower quality - see Pauline Fowler Done