Talk:Passions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Passions has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1: May 2007 -


This article has been selected for improvement by WikiProject Soap Operas.   Please help!
We also welcome you to look at our Collaboration List and join us!

Contents

[edit] Peer review

A semi-automated review of the quality of this article was run on and the results are here:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/March 2008#Passions

Might be worth a look to improve the quality of the article.

More tips here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Passions/archive1

[edit] Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied here: User talk:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers#Passions -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Is the status component of the current cast list really necessary? The length of time that an actor has been in a role seems especially unimportant to me when dealing with soaps, where the actor's tenure and the character's run don't always match up due to recasting. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article?

I think with a bit of work we can get this to good article status. If you're interested in making this happen and haven't already done so, please read the comments above in the "Peer review" section above. I think the main problems in our way is the dearth of inline references, some organization issues, and lack of photos. I've worked on all these points but more needs to be done. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review followup

I have looked at the article again and have some followup comments from my peer review. There has been much improvement, but much still remains to be improved.

The lead still does not seems to mention any of the "Trademark" section, at least as far as I can tell. Take the Table of Contents (which is all the section and subsection headers) and read the lead, marking each TOC entry out when you see it mentioned in the lead. What is not marked out should be mentioned in some way, even as a word or phrase. See WP:LEAD

For references I really don't have time to add {{fact}} tags (sorry), but again read the article carefully. Each paragraph should have at least one inline reference. Any direct quotation should be cited (so currently the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences quote on the orangutan nomination is not cited). Any extraordinary claim (best, worst, first, last) and indeed almost any statistic or date should be cited. I will note that the subsections Roman Catholicism through Breaking the fourth wall in the Trademarks section are all uncited. Without it, these will seem like original research. Also said any sort of attribution (indirect quote). Examples One fan favorite was the 2003 spoof of the 2002 film Chicago,...' needs a ref that shows this, or From January 2000 until early May the show remained dead last among all 10 soaps. what is the source? See WP:CITE and WP:V

Fair use images are to illustrate points raised in the article - there are a lot now and this may cvause trouble in GA or FAC unless each very clearly relates to the article discussion and in its caption. See WP:FAIR USE

You show two TV Guide covers - was there no critical commentary in the accompanying articles? Or does Saop Opera Digest publish reviews?

Be careful of tense - I think it is better to narrate plot of previous episodes / arcs in the past tense, but the whole In the early days of the show, Passions heroine Sheridan Crane is identified as a close friend of the late Diana, Princess of Wales; soon Sheridan recalls speaking to Diana on the phone immediately prior to the 1997 car accident which took the Princess' life. should be In the early days of the show, Passions heroine Sheridan Crane was identified as a close friend of the late Diana, Princess of Wales; soon Sheridan recalled speaking to Diana on the phone immediately prior to the 1997 car accident which took the Princess' life. etc. (unless there is some Soap Opera MOS I am unaware of).

Hope this helps, when you think you are done and ready for the next stage, ask for another look over Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; I do want to note that per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)], plot summary should be in present tense to stylistically differentiate it from real-world events, though discussing the production or performers themselves in past tense is correct. The example above is really in-universe plot, and so should be in present tense. — TAnthonyTalk 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your time, I'm working on trying to find more sources. Cheers -- Dougie WII (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)