Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 [1].

Simone Russell

Nominator(s):
Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello everyone, this article is about a

Rae Thomas. The network defended the show's treatment of Simone's sexuality as a serious commentary on the topic. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by three actresses over the course of the show: Lena Cardwell (July 5, 1999 to April 16, 2000), Chrystee Pharris (April 17, 2000 to April 22, 2006), and Cathy Jenéen Doe
(July 23, 2004 – September 4, 2007). The character was created as a part of the show's effort to represent a full African-American family and full-realized African-American characters on television.

Her storyline made daytime television history by having the first instance in a soap opera of two women in bed making love. The character is also notable for being daytime TV's first African-American lesbian. At the

Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Thank you!
    Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comments by Tintor2

I almost support it but there is one thing that kinda bothers me

  • The storyline section seems a bit in-universe (like "Born in 1983" seems trivial for the casual reader). Couldn't it start with something like "The character debuts in the season x, episode x"? Same with the other paragraphs.

Ping me when you are done, and I will support.Tintor2 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Syek88

I probably won't review this article, I'm sorry, but I did notice one thing - the article seems to be inconsistent (lead, infobox, body) about whether the Cardwell-Pharris casting change occurred in 2000 or 2001. Syek88 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comment. Another user had changed the years on the article a little bit ago, and I forgot to change everything back. I have fixed this.
    Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comments from Carbrera
  • I'll be on and off today so I'll try to leave a few comments here and there throughout the next few days. In the references section, you should only provide links to different publications and website (like Soapcentral) on the first occasion.

Support I've just finished reading through this article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. I did notice that ref 14 has a typo ("=Variety"), but other than that, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and engaging. Good work! JAGUAR  14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support. I have fixed the typo.
    Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Image review

  • File:CathyJenéenDoePinkTop.jpg: Non-free image, which seems like the correct license for such an image. Using it to show the article topic seems fine for me. The non-free rationale seems to address all aspects of NFCC.

ALT text is ungrammatical. Otherwise all seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Everything is in good state with wikilinks and archives. I'll give it a pass.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you!
    Aoba47 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comments from Gen. Quon

This looks pretty good. I just have a few points, and if they are resolved/explained, I'd be more than happy to give support for the prose.

  • The opening sentence features the phrase " which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08." This isn't a major issue, but to me there seems something off about using the 'to' between "1999" and "2007" and then using an endash for the next years. I could be totally off here, but would "1999–2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08" work?
  • Very good point. I have expanded these in the lead and the body of the article as well.
    Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do you need to add access dates to the URLs? I always do by force of habit, but I'm not sure if it's required.

Just let me know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you!
    Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@

Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from PanagiotiZois
In the lead section shouldn't it say "fully-realized" instead of "full-realized"?
In the "Casting and creation" section, seeing as you already mentione what NBC stands for in the lead section, I don't think it's necessary to do so again. Also wouldn't it be better to say "made [her] feel loved and appreciated"? Though if you feel it's better the way it is I have no problem.
Everything seems fines with the "Storyline" section. One question though, it says that Simone's mother Eve panicked when she found out about her sexuality. Was she concerned for her safety or was it out of homophobia. Because later it's stated that Simone went to her for help with Rae. Was Eve by that point accepting?
In the "Reception" section I noticed this in the box: "stories of our lives, he says." Is he quoting someone on that?

Other than those minor things, the article is amazing. Not really a surprise though, given that you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support!
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comments Leaning Oppose from Vedant

Will put some soon. NumerounovedantTalk 17:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you!
    Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Lede
  • You might want to consider re-arranging the second paragraph. It goes back and forth discussing the character and the actresses. Line 1 talks about the creation of character, followed by the line talking about the actresses. The next line goes back to the conception of the character, and the next talk about the actresses again. It just comes out as a little disconnected IMO.
Casting and creation
  • Again, the last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't really belong there. The entire paragraph talks about the casting of racially diverse cast and the no. of actresses that played Simone doesn't really relate to any of it. You might want to start the next paragraph with "Over the course of the show, Simone was played by three actresses:...". And then continue with the details of actresses in their order.
  • Did Cardwell never say anything (other than the fan-mail bit) on her exit? The article isn't really giving the reader anything on her exit. (I am assuming there's to give in the first place?)
  • "she shaped her performance through her friendship with Pharris; she explained that Pharris answered all of her questions about the character." - this is rather minor, but can you think of a suitable pronoun to replace the second occurrence of "Pharris"?
Characterization
  • Considering the contrasting reviews, can you think of a better conjunction than "and" to connect the second sentence.
  • I find it a little odd that the Doe's approach to the character is discussed in the Casting section, while Phariss' in the Characterization section. Also, Cardwell's approach (if available) is missing altogether.
  • Is there nothing worthy of discussion about the character prior to bisexual storyline?
Storylines
  • Not sure if I can be of much help here. I am completely unfamiliar with the series and characters and wouldn't want to mess with plot and storylines.
Reception
  • I am not sure if the opening sentence is appropriately placed. I am sure its a big part of the character as such, but the general viewpoint towards the character needs to be mentioned first.
  • Things don't seem to get any better as we move ahead, these are completely disconnected and underwhelming claims and should be treated as separate entries (expanding them might be helpful).
  • There are also some very basic errors here as well. Caps fix needed "the soap opera won", repetition of "Doe".
  • I don't think that the section should start with mentioning the awards; they should either go in the end together or be mentioned after a relevant fact.
  • "Simone's storyline about coming out as a lesbian received mainly positive feedback" - what about before that, anything on her earlier reception?
  • "An article on Soaps.com noted that Simone would be remembered as "a character who broke down some barriers for the depiction of lesbians on daytime TV and earned the show awards and accolades from civil rights groups"." - This has already been said, adds nothing new here, however, I do believe that this belongs here and should be removed from the development section.
  • emphasized "on"?
  • With no time line the "right now" bit seems odd here : "Soapcentral's Brandi Pine found Simone's homosexuality to be "the most real and moving story on the show right now", and highlighted".
  • I also think the sentence should be split into two.
  • The third paragraph has a lot of claims with missing in-line citations.
  • "Sarah Warn criticized Simone's relationship" - just "Warn" would suffice.
  • The Herndon L. Davis review has no base here, the intersex serial killer? Where did that come from? I am missing something?
  • The section is in a rather poor state, it both begins and ends abruptly. There is too much negative criticism and too little of the favorable reviews to balance out the "positive feedback" claim, some going back and forth, and some unsubstantiated claims (comparisons between Simone and other LGBT characters never finds a mention). You might need to put in some extra work here.
Looks a lot better now, well structured and balanced. Thanks for the prompt replies, just the minor tweak. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you!
    Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Also, I am concerned that there's not much on her earlier story (I am not sure if that was the case on the show) in the article and too much focus on her sexuality storyline, without the mention of any other aspects of her personality. Similarly, the development (especially the characterization) section too feels to be missing out on a lot of aspects. This remains to be a highly underwritten character (either in the article, or the show itself). I'll wait for a reply to have a better perspective on this, and although I see that a lot of work has been put into the article, it does look a little short of FA standards to me. NumerounovedantTalk 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be no information available other than what's included, I don't see a reason on discussing the idea further. What you can do is mention at least once in the article (probably in the development section), that this was a minor character that gathered attention with the later developments in her storylines. Looks good to me at this point, will have a final say after proof reading. Great work Aoba47. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Thank you for taking the time to do a thorough review, and I apologize for my mistakes. This was one of the very first articles that I worked after joining Wikipedia so that probably explains the questionable prose in certain areas.
    Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Looks good to me now, just the one thing. The soaps review is still being repeated, I believe you agree with me on the fact fact that it is better suited in the Reception section, and thus should be removed from the Development section. I can now Support (in good faith the last point will be addressed, which i am sure will be). Great work on the article. NumerounovedantTalk 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed.
    Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment by Ian

Recusing coord duties, I've done a quick copyedit; pls let me know if I've accidentally altered any meaning. Given the brevity of my review, I won't declare outright support, but nor do I have any particular objections from a prose perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much. Your copyedits have helped to improve the article a great deal; I greatly appreciate your feedback.
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@

Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Coordinator comment: I think this is almost ready, but I noticed a few little issues in the prose. If someone could give it a last polish, I think we'd be there. For example: "she breaks with him" (idiomatic); the second paragraph of "Storylines" has a series of similar sentences which make for repetitive reading and could perhaps be varied a little; "Viewers saw the set-up for the ending of Simone's romance with Rae through the beginning of 2007" (Wordy, and a little unclear what this means); "She does not make a physical appearance during the show's run on DirecTV or in the series finale" (what other kind of appearance is there?); "Damon Romine, media entertainment director of GLAAD (2005-2009), emphasized the show's ability to normalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics for a wider audience" (What was he talking about when he emphasised this? Or do we mean he "highlighted" or something similar?); "Passions also made history by becoming the first daytime television series to show two women in bed making love" (Redundancy: unless women had been shown "making love" somewhere else, we don't need the location. I'm not keen on "making love" in an encyclopaedic article either, but that's not a huge issue). There is nothing major, but there is enough to give me pause before promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take this -- the prose has changed a bit since my quick ce, so I was planning to give it another run-through anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you!
    Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, sorry, been one of those weeks (actually been one of those weeks for the past month!) but I started checking yesterday and will aim to finish today. Cheers, 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm done prose-wise. Just looking at sources, I couldn't seem to find SoapCentral's "about us" section -- what makes them authoritative, and can we confirm this is not a site that the public can edit? Also why is SoapCentral italicised in the references but Soaps.com is not -- I gather they're both websites as opposed to magazines, so I'd expect standard case for both. Cheers, 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

No problem, that's why we're here! I just want to hear back from Ian on this one before we promote, as he raised one sourcing issue. But, to warn you, he's a little busy IRL at the moment, so this might be a day or two longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response and that makes sense to me. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.
    Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thank you for your help; I hope you are having a great week so far.
    Aoba47 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Simone_Russell/archive1&oldid=1140259593"