Talk:Rita Bennett

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dexter task force (assessed as High-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 February 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Rita Bennett has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 8, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 19, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 20, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Copyedit

Hi

I have just given it a quick run through. There was a problem which I have addressed on the MoS TV page here Naming of characters.

The issue is that articles should use the name in full a couple of times, or to differentiate between similar names. For example in the section discussing Rita and Paul, the use of first names is fine as it would be confusing to use their surnames. It also has conortations for usage such as "Dexter" as opposed to Morgan. I think that some sort of most recognised would be in effect but this is not covered by the MoS' as far as I can see.

I will wait and see what the TV MoS say on that one :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rita Bennett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'll be conducting this review. I expect to start in the next day or two. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 05:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'm so glad someone's finally getting to it. It's been at GAN for awhile. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, before I start my review proper, I wanted to ask you about one concern I have right off the bat. The article seems to be in mostly good shape, appears to be well sourced and well written. However, this is an article about a fictional character prominent in both a television series and a book series, and this article seems to be a little slanted toward the former rather than the latter. For instance, the lede includes a great deal of information about her time in the television show but the only real reference to the books is in the first sentence. (At the very least, I think it should be mentioned in the lede that, although dead in the series, she is still alive in the books.) Also, in the "Appearances" section, the "Television" subsection comes first before "Literature". Since she was first featured in the books, don't you think it should be the other way around, with Literature first and then Television? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter before continuing with the review. Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning on quick-failing this or anything (in fact, I was one of the major editors on The Getaway (Dexter) so I feel I can be helpful with this review) but I do think this might be something that needs addressing... — Hun ter Ka hn 14:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. To be honest, I've never actually read the books. From what I understand though she's far more prominent in the television series than she is in the novels, which is why her role in the show is more expanded in the article. I'd be happy to add to the lead a little to pay more coverage to her role in the books. As for the sections, that doesn't really matter either. They can easily be switched around. HorrorFan121 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some expansion and minor edit checks on the article. What do you think? The lead has more mention of her role in the novel's now. HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to take a closer look either later today or tomorrow. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, I still have some concerns. First of all, I felt the lede needed a bit of work. Some stuff seemed out of order to me, some areas needed more emphasis, and in some cases there was unnecessary detail. I've taken the liberty of tweaking the lede myself, so please take a look at my changes and, if you disagree with anything, feel free to change it back or voice any thoughts to me.

The bigger obstacle, I think is that the article is too TV-centric and doesn't include enough about the books. First of all, switching the "Literature" and "Television" sections by itself is not a sufficient solution. For one thing, it creates some structure problems because the "Literature" section still reads like it follows the "Television" section. (The first sentence in the body of the article now reads "Rita also features in the Dexter series of novels written by Jeff Lindsay," which, in addition to being grammatically incorrect, assumes the "Television" section is in front of it, which it's not.) But besides that, the "Literature" section includes nothing about Rita's personality, and very little about what her role was in the books. You have a lot of detail about this from the show (maybe too much, but that's another matter), but almost nothing from the books, and the instnaces from the books you do include are really vague, like "They are, by a humorous misunderstanding, engaged..." What was the misunderstanding, exactly?

I know that you haven't read the books, but this kind of information can probably be gleaned from reviews, which can then be cited as reliable sources. Also, part of the "Literature" section is still related to books. You include an extended quote from J.A. Lance about the disconnect that comes from Rita being dead in the show and alive in the books. I feel like since the show-Rita was adapted from book-Rita, and not the other way around, that kind of stuff should be in the "Television" section.

Finally, I think the article needs a pretty thorough copy edit. There are some instances of bad grammar (the aforementioned "Rita also features in...") as well as unencyclopedic language ("Rita is of course kept in the dark..."). I can try to work on this a bit myself, but given the other problems, I wonder if perhaps a better solution would be to take this out of GAN for now, work on the other changes I've suggested, then renominate it? If you really think you can address these problems within a week, I'm willing to keep it on hold and give you that chance. However, if you're OK with me failing it for now, I promise you that I will be willing to review it again once you renominate it, so it won't lavish in GAN for months like it did before. :) — Hun ter Ka hn 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs work still, but is a good start and could easily reach GA status once the extra mile is put in. Let me know what you think about whether to keep it on hold or to renominate it later. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with you failing it for now. It might be better to renominate it later because I don't feel I can get everything done in a week. As long as it doesn't sit at GAN for a long time again, it's okay with me. I can start looking for sources pertaining to characterization, etc. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reaction here. A lot of users would pitch a fit, so I appreciate you for handling it more maturely and agreeing to work on the problems. As I said, I'll definitely be willing to review it once you bring it back. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rita Bennett/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 02:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

My brother keeps trying to get me to watch this show, but to be honest, I'm only ever interested in Jennifer Carpenter's scenes.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Quite a lot of niggles and creases. Overall a GOCE copy-edit might be more effective, but here's a list of things I saw in case you'd rather tackle it yourself:
In the lead, "girlfriend-become-wife" seems really strange. "Girlfriend, and later, wife" would be much cleaner.
Also in the lead, "in either series" seems vague - British English would just assume that's seasons of the show, and although the article's written in AmE, there's no point leaving anything in that could be confusing. I'd use "medium".
"Dexter's son, Harrison in the television series" - should be "Dexter's son Harrison, in the television series". Move the comma.
"Portrayal as" -> "portrayal of"
"the E! writer Kristin Dos Santos said the it" -> remove first "the" (just "E! writer Kristin..."), second "the" should be "that"
"in the Dexter Morgan Series" - is the word Series meant to be capitalised? If it's not listed like this normally then use it lowercase, but leave it if the books use "Dexter Morgan Series" on the cover or something.
"he talks with a psychiatrist about his relationship issues (albeit to a psychiatrist he plans to kill)" -> "he talks with a psychiatrist about his relationship issues—albeit to a psychiatrist he plans to kill". Em dashes look and read more encyclopaedic than brackets.
"her now jailed ex-husband" -> "now-jailed" with a hyphen.
Also noticing here that the "literature" section has a bit of a point-by-point comparison with the television series. It should really stand on its own, whilst the comparisons should be mentioned in the television series' section - mentioning changes when dealing with the later medium that made them makes more sense contextually. To that point, most of the third paragraph in this section should be migrated elsewhere.
"Entitled" should be "titled", the former means "deserving of", not "named".
You've got some double em-dashes in there, which is odd. Any instances of "——" should just be "—".
Looking at the television section, I'm still seeing the heavy skewing that the first GAN mentioned. Perhaps it would be possible to give a rough character history based on what is shared in common between both versions and list the differences under the relevant headings? Not a big problem and if it can't be fixed now then I'm not fussed, but five novels' worth of material should roughly cover the same span as five television seasons.
"There is a flashback of" -> "flashback to".
The development section reads fine (one point, the next one, but minor), except it's entirely about the television series. Has Lindsay given any interviews as to his inspirations for writing the character at all? If possible, this should be included. If not, don't worry.
"Benz heard rumors from David Zayas that her character would be killed in the episode, but she was not notified until late September" -> when did she hear these rumours? Don't include September as a concrete time without another for reference - if you can't source when she heard this, then perhaps change "late September" to "much later".
The date format in the citations is inconsistent - it's not important which style to use, but they should really all be of the same style.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is fine, no worries there.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Citations are used appropriately and nothing is left to OR. However, the dating issue has been mentioned above.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I really don't feel that the novels are being depicted much here. I don't know if this is from lack of available sources (in which case it's excusable) or from lack of familiarity (in which case, perhaps members of WP:BOOK or WP:NV may be of use?

B. Focused:
Whilst perhaps too narrow, the focus definitely isn't too broad.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral and unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable, no vandalism or edit warring.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Two commons images, one non-free. Rationale works out fine.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are used well, no problems there.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, I'm going to put this article on hold. There's a fair heft of work to be done, but I don't think it's impossible to do it within the week. Might be best to go for a WP:GOCE copy-edit and see if you can dig up material on the novels whilst waiting on that, or handle the whole thing yourself. Either way, there is a Good Article in here, it just needs to be hewn out some more. Good luck!

I've implemented all suggested changes except for the expansion of the literature section, which is for two reasons, the first is that Rita is far less prominent in the books (of which I've read four since the last GAN) and as such her notability is far less accountable, secondly (linked with the first), far fewer officials have written about her solely referring to the novels, so it is extremely tough to find sources, which is probably why more TV characters have WP articles than novel characters (just a theory). Thank you very much for the review and if there is anything I have omitted or perhaps not done to your satisfaction, please let me know and I will attempt to rectify it for you. Have a cracking day. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured there'd be less material out there, so I can live with that. If you plan on taking the article to FAC at some point, I'd still keep an eye out just for anything that pops up to use. The changes are good, though, and enough for the article to pass. I'll put it through now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rita Bennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100113044829/http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/038551123X.asp to http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/038551123X.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Rita Bennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rita Bennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]