Talk:Marlena Evans/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 21:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article is not quite at the good article standard. I'll list some issues below, but I would strongly recommend taking this to peer review and asking someone to copyedit the whole article before making another nomination here. On the plus side, the article has quite a bit of "real world" information which is important for an article on a fictional character.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Various typos, grammatical errors and (some minor) manual of style issues. Would recommend a thorough copyedit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Some more citations needed, more reliable sources needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Tone is less than neutral in places.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No obvious problems

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):

   Dubious use of a non-free image

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Not GA standard at this time

• Some of the prose needs tightening up. There are some grammatical errors and at times the tone is not quite encyclopedic enough. Other parts are a little unclear. Some language is a bit too informal. Examples of parts that could be improved:
  • "...representative of the symbiosis between American's soaps and tabloid newspapers."
  • "the soap's budget was slashed by 40%" (slashed is a little informal)
  • "The couple was quickly reunited after Drake Hogestyn had returned earlier that year and shipped off to Switzerland to treat John's paralysis." - not sure what's going on there
  • "Perhaps the most gruesome a wild tiger named Horton is released at the circus and kills Tony DiMera"
  • "much to the fans surprise" - not encyclopedic, needs an apostrophe, needs a reference
  • "The most shocking murder occurs shortly after." - according to whom?
  • "Marlena subsequently murders Alice by choking her with her signature donuts." - this needs to be clearer to the reader who is not already a fan
• There's a strange use of tenses, especially in parts where you are discussing real-life events in the present tense for some reason
• There's also a strange mix of fact and fiction. eg: "Ken Corday is forced to fire his two highest paid actors, Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn. John begins seeing Dr. Charlotte Taylor ..."
• Is "In an interview, Ken Corday says he regrets doing the storyline," part of the quote? If not, why is it in the quote box? Also, the first sentence of the quote seems to contradict this, saying that he doesn't regret the storylines. I'm also a bit concerned by the length of the quote. It should probably be cut down a bit.
• Television show and magazine titles need to be in italics (see WP:ITALIC)
• Per the WP:CONTRACTION part of the manual of style, avoid using contractions like wasn't, didn't etc.
• There is some overlinking of words, a few cases of linking to the same article in quick succession.
• There are links to disambiguation pages (see here)
• Try to make sure there are no spaces between punctuation and citations. (instead of Salem. , have Salem.)
• The lead section doesn't necessarily need any citations. Some editors like to have citations in the lead, some don't because everything in the lead should be mentioned and cited later on. In this lead, you have cited statements that are not the slightest bit controversial (eg. the fact that Marlena was possessed by the devil), and left other statements without citations that are more controversial (eg. that she "has experienced what some consider to be the most outrageous circumstances of any character in soap opera history") This needs to be consistent. Either use citations throughout the lead, only for the very controversial things, or not at all.
• You have used ampersands quite a lot, these should be written out as "and"
• Can you be possessed by the "devil incarnate"? Doesn't "incarnate" mean he's actually in the flesh?
• "Marlena is the only soap character in the history of soap operas to ever be possessed by the devil." - statements like that need reliable sources
• There were several parts of the in-universe descriptions where I didn't really know what was going on. It needs to be clearer for readers who don't watch the show. The "Storylines" section further down helps, but some of the introductory information about the character needs to be further up.
• "She is widely known even outside of Days of our Lives viewerbase. The character is a legend,..." - again, statements like these need references. If she is widely known outside the soap fanbase, is there any more coverage of her in other sources? the article relies heavily on Soap Opera Digest. At one point you mention a storyline that garnered a lot of press, but there's no evidence of this in the sources used.
• What makes this source reliable?
• What makes The Daily Stab reliable?
• I don't think you need all those external links to biographies of the character. What do they add?
• The image in the "Salem Stalker & Melaswen Island" section is non-free, and I'm not convinced it can be used under fair use. It doesn't really add anything vital to the article.

Please let me know if you have any questions.--BelovedFreak 21:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)