Talk:George Knight (EastEnders)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. I know nothing about EastEnders, so I hope a non-fan perspective will help in the review. Expect initial comments in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FishLoveHam, I gave a glance to the article using the GA toolbox, and its show very high level of similiarity, with one source saying "violation suspected"; so my pre-review suggestion would be to use less long lines of quotes, even though they are sourced, see WP:PARAPHRASE (it's technically fine, but this amount of quoting feels like kind of a grey area). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's copyvio came back with only around 31% in similarity FishLoveHam (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only showing "violation suspected" when run with the "use search engine" ticked, and that too uncached only; yes, but for lots of sources, I did say it seems like "a grey area". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go section by section, FishLoveHam. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

All fine

Storylines

Shorten it somewhat, like to around 70-80% of current length.
- The reason why it's long is because he's on a soap opera, so appears up to four times a week. Even though he's only been on for a year and a half, that's still a lot of screen time. Is there anything in particular you think I should cut? FishLoveHam (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it can still be shortened, as a lot of soap operas are just padding in general. For eg, When George proposes to Elaine, she declines as they are not ready. When George tries again days later, Elaine accepts.: George proposes to Elaine, which she declined but eventually accepts, and similar(I haven't seen the show, so I can't see any more definite examples). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! FishLoveHam (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a error in copying to the word counter, just shorten it by 4-5%, and/or add another heading after 2023-present(it would need to be altered too, as it will now not to be to the present)(On New Year's Day seems like a good place}}. Also, btw, is this section upto date to today or atleast a few weeks-a month time? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the soaps WikiProject, headings under Storylines are generally split by stint, (example: Keanu Taylor) so I fear it would look odd to split the section like that, so I'll keep trying to shorten it. It is generally up to date; the character is taking a bit of a back seat right now and hasn't had a major plot in a while. FishLoveHam (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: I think I've shortened it enough now. FishLoveHam (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

Checking every 6th ref

Ref-1: a new lord of the manor
Ref-7: on paper ... long time.
Ref-13: a hit with some of the locals
Ref-19: George ... disrespectful ... cross.
Ref-25: one action or ... their walls up
Ref-31: see their deeds to make a judgement. I
Ref-37: the chance to be a big brother
Ref-43: should win 'all the awards'

Overall

FishLoveHam, I have read the whole artice, and I see no issues, except one, that the article uses a lot of quotes; I honestly feel that it is bending MOS:QUOTE quite severely. Also, are there no other free images that can be used on the article? Please fix these, and after I have written a spot-check for it, I'll pass it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @FishLoveHam: In response to the above, I would recommend adding pictures pictures of Francesca Henry, Michelle Collins, Harriet Thorpe and Molly Rainford, as they all have free pictures (you can see them on their articles) and are actors of characters that are quite important to George's character. If needed, you could also use the pictures of the actors of Linda Carter and Phil Mitchell as they are free too, but I think that may be overkill. Good job with the GA!! :)

@DoctorWhoFan91: - I have restored the actor names in the storylines section as in general for soap operas these are given in order to make it less in-universe and for clearer navigation. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, DaniloDaysOfOurLives; thank you, I was wondering if that was a good idea or not. As to the above comment- yes, it's a good suggestion, though two, maybe three would be enough, we don't need to drown the article in images.^[Joke] Thank you again. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thank you for reviewing this GA, FLH has worked so hard on so many articles and I know this means a lot to him too :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: I've added another image, though it isn't a priority. Please tell me what quotes I should change because I'm a little confused about what you want me to do. FishLoveHam (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through it again and reworded quotes. I tried my best with it. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FishLoveHam, can I make the changes myself? You can revert them if you want, it's just that it will be harder to list them then just edit them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No tell me what to do, so you can explain why it needs changed and I can defend it if I think it should stay. FishLoveHam (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already made the changes; you can partially revert it/reword it as you like, couldn't have explained inside the review as it was spread throughout the article. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it kind of felt like the article was summarising Cleanshaw and Salmon's words instead of reporting them in an encyclopedic manner.(P.S. Just to be clear, I feel you wrote a great article, and the version pre-edit looked better, were it not on Wikipedia). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's good, thanks. FishLoveHam (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the spot-check, everything checks out, so I'm passing the article. Well done, it was very wll-written, and an enjoyable, interesting and informative read. Congratulations FishLoveHam, keep up the good work! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks for the review!

FishLoveHam (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·