Talk:Ryan Lavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Television Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Assessment comments

WikiProject Soap Operas
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an attempt to build consistent guidelines for articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

Ryan Lavery was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: April 22, 2008}

[edit] GA failed

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):

Assertations such as "one of the most memorable debuts" are not backed up at all, and a few peacock terms have snuck in. Plot summary is very bloated and focuses more on the entire storyline than on the individual character.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Only some of the sources really seems to be about the actual character himself. Also, 8 references is very thin, especially when 4 are just citations to an individual episode. Furthermore, claims such as "His well-intentioned judgment calls often landing him in more trouble than good, he is characteristic of the tragic hero, often seemingly unaware of this flaw" smack of original research very highly.
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

It gives a fairly thourough coverage of the character (maybe a bit too thorough), but some parts seem to drift off into more of a plot summary of the whole series. While I understand that soap opera stories can twist and turn like so many mountain paths, I still think that this could be focused a bit better.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

Does have many problems with peacock words in the intro, but not quite enough to fail it for NPOV.
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:

This article has a long way to go yet before it can reach GA status. I would work on finding more sources that pertain to the character himself, if that's possible.