Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ruth Martin (Lassie)/1

Ruth Martin (Lassie)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: No action. The article improved during the review and no contributing reviewer now calls for delisting. Geometry guy 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article just recently passed GA. However, I feel that it needs cleaning up before it meets the standards of a GA article. The cleaning up can probably be done easily if volunteer editors pitch in at GAR. In my mind, the article has problems meeting the following standards:

1 (a) well written - This article is not well written. It contains numerous grammatical errors and the prose is choppy and does not flow. Examples:

The couple buy > The couple buys

---Done: "the couple buys" ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the fourth season approached, stars Clayton and Rettig wanted to leave the show. Clayton wanted to return to her roots in Broadway following the death of her teenage daughter in an automobile accident and Rettig wanted to live life without being recognized as a TV star wherever he went. - repetitious wording - wanted to leave the show > wanted to return to her roots, wanted to live life...

---Done. "As the fourth season approached, Clayton considered returning to her roots in Broadway following the death of her teenage daughter in an automobile accident, and Rettig wanted to live life without being recognized as a TV star wherever he went." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provost was scripted into episode after episode and proved an audience favorite, often sharing adventures with Lassie that had formerly been Rettig's lot. Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure) but it was not to be. - this is unclear as it implies that "sharing adventures with Lassie" was a negative experience "had formerly been Rettig's lot" and that a child star was forced to remain in the show: "Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure) but it was not to be."

---Done: "Provost was scripted into episode after episode and proved an audience favorite, often being the sole principal human partner in the sorts of adventures with Lassie that Rettig had formerly enjoyed. Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure), but producers were content with the status quo, the show was more popular than ever, and it was hoped the two stars would change their minds and stay." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plan hit a snag when... - informal prose that is not encyclopedic

---Done: "The plan was aborted..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With wedding bells for Ellen nixed... - informal prose that is not encyclopedic

---Done: "With marriage for the Ellen character out of the question,..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lassie was ideated as a children's series with first, Ellen Miller, and then, Ruth Martin being the show's principal human female character during their respective seasons. - "ideated" is not a correct word

---Done: "...conceived..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section "Characterization", every sentence is a new paragraph

---Done: One sentence deleted. Others repositioned to create lengthier paragraphs. This section needs some material about Ruth's relationship with her adopted son. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Ruth Martin saw two performers during the course of the show's run. - a role does not "see" performers

---Done: "Two performers portrayed the Ruth Martin character..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 (b) complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Examples:
Although this is an article on a fictional character, the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

It does not rely on reliable secondary sources. It relies primarily on a biography of Lassie: Collins, Ace. Lassie: A Dog's Life and a book on Lassie collectibles, The Legacy of Lassie

---The article relies principally on one reliable secondary source, Lassie: A Dog's Life by Ace Collins and published by Penguin. The book meets WP's reliable secondary source requirements: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The Lassie collectible book has been deleted as a source. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that are critical reviews or commentary on the series, i.e. legitimate secondary sources. (Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.)

The article has a legitimate secondary sources as noted immediately above. Henry Jenkins has written an essay on Lassie in WOW which may make a good critical review. I'll try to locate it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not distinguish clearly between real-world perspective versus "in-universe" perspective. There is no "Plot" section to clearly set for the plot in an "in-universe" perspective to orient the reader as to what the role of Ruth Martin is within the series. Rather, the plot is interwoven throughout the article.

True. Good idea. A plot section should added to the article. I'm wondering if it needs to be sourced? Plot summaries don't usually require sourcing. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not distinguish "Primary information", that is information from the episodes themselves, and information from other sources.

--- I'm confused. Please elaborate. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not contrast the portrayal of the article subject, the fictional character of Ruth Martin as played by different actresses, nor address how this affected the character.

---Agreed. Is this a requirement for a GA award? ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow Wikipedia:Layout in that the footnotes are not uniformly formatted, footnotes for the same page or pages are repeated as separate footnotes (named references would be preferable, as not only is it neater, it allows the reader to see that most of the information comes from relatively few pages).

Books do not uniformly have ISBNs as required.

---Done. ISBN added. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the section headings "Characterization", "Casting", "Cancellation", "Reprise", "Reception" wander between "in-universe" and real world information.

There is no "Critical acclaim" section to provide critical reaction. There is no "Cultural impact" or "Legacy" section to address the impact of the television show.

---The article is about the character Ruth Martin not the show. Here, a link to the Lassie article and its appropriate "Legacy" section should be sufficient. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 (a) Factually accurate and verifiable Example:

The references do not clarify the source of information as primary and secondary sources; these appear mixed, just as in-universe and real world is somewhat mixed.

---Sorry, I'm confused here. Could you eleaborate? ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Primary, secondary and teritiary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are listed under "References" that are not used in the footnotes. These should go under a heading such as "Further reading" instead, to separate them from the sources for the article.

---No, all the material listed in "References" appears in the "Footnotes". ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear from the sourcing that there is no Original research.

I'm confused. Please elaborate. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Primary, secondary and teritiary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail Examples:

The article appears to wander into relatively detailed discussions of other characters unduly without relating the material specifically to the Ellen Miller character.

---Agreed. Have edited. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cancellation" section is almost entirely about the series in general and not the subject of the article.

---Agreed. Have done some editing to tighten the section up and refocus on the character and performer. Neither can be divorced from the greater scheme of things and so, the events leading to cancelation are outlined. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the article as I am not proficient at writing articles on fiction and welcome input and suggestions from other editors. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Article has been considerably overhauled with in-universe and real world material divorced as nearly as possible. Reference section has been overhauled. New section "Role" added. ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse has quit reviewing GAs, so I don't know who closes this. I'll ask. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community reassessment, so the nominator (in this case Mattisse) would not normally close the discussion anyway. Please comment below on whether you think the article meets the criteria. Geometry guy 11:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This appears to be much improved thanks to Mattisse's comments, and the efforts of ItsLassieTime. However, I don't think it is GA standard yet.

The roles of the first two sections need to be clearly delineated: from the lack of citations, I assume the first section is the analogue of a plot summary, in which case, it should only contain factual information which would be transparent to someone watching the series. However, apart from footnote 1 and the reference to Provost's biography, the second section is also sourced entirely to the episodes, so the same applies: it should not engage in analysis without secondary sources to support that analysis.

Footnote 1 is an odd choice of reference (a relationship counseling book about female aggression): its entire content on Ruth Martin is: "Donna Stone, June Cleaver, and Ruth Martin were TV moms who wore spotless, neatly pressed dresses, never raised their voices (unless Timmy and Lassie were lost), and always had a pleasant smile, perfect makeup, and a neatly coiffed hairdo." It would be much better to use Collins book to source any analysis in this section, in my view. Geometry guy 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha[edit]

Can't check the refs so will WP:AGF.
There's a "citation needed" tag on sentence "Lassie was conceived as a children's series with Ruth Martin being the show's principal human female character during her several seasons" in section "Role in Lassie". The sentence makes two statements that need support: "... conceived as a children's series ..."; "... the show's principal human female character ...".
In principle descriptions of the character's development and comparisons of Leachman's and Lockhart's portrayals would be desirable. However this was essentially a 1950s show, and at the time "Stepford Wives" were pretty much the norm in TV. So sources for development and comparisons may not exist or may be practically impossible to find.
I like the quotes from Lockhart, they concisely give a strong impression of an actor has to think about career decisions.
Nevertheless the article has a rather flat feeling. Lockhart said, "Back then I didn't realize the power of my character. I didn't realize the image I had created and what it meant to so many people," but the article does not explain the "power" she was talking about. Can you find any critics' comments on the character and Lockhart's portrayal? --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: the citation issue needs to be fixed; apart from that, if the flat feeling can be fixed it's a clear GA, otherwise it's borderline. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

( Fixed heading level on this section --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

The citation issue has been fixed. I'd now give it the benefit of the doubt and pass it as GA, as it has no serious defects and the difficulty of finding more sources for a 50-year old TV show suggests it would be unreasonable to ask for much more. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LassieTime[edit]

I wish I could find some critical reviews from the period or even later but I have yet to encounter any specific comment on the role or the actress. I suppose Lockhart's Emmy nomination will be the closest to critical comment that will turn up at this point. Surely, critical comment exists -- interviews in TV Guide, Life, Look, and grocery store check-out line magazines like Woman's Day and Family Circle. But the show is some 50 plus years old and such material has likely been lost to time. I've merged and re-written the first two sections. ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a great job in removing unsourced analysis. I'm impressed: many editors need a long list of examples! Is there really no analysis of the role in Collins? That's a pity if so. I made a tentative suggestion to redivide the first section to delineate the role from the portrayal of the role, but this can be reverted if it is unhelpful. The article is pretty close to GA standard now, in my view. Geometry guy 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Proposal to close as no action. The article has seen enormous improvement, and I see no consensus here to delist. With "no action", the article would retain its current GA status. If editors believe that this GAR should deliver a stronger endorsement of the current article, that is also an option. Geometry guy 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above proposal - The article's editor has responded with a wonderful willingness to work and to accept suggestions. As a result, I agree that the article is enormously improved, and is as close to a GA as is possible for this topic. Its major flaws have been addressed, so I agree with the proposal to continue the article's status as a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]